1 / 40

Adaptive Resource Control for QoS Using an IP-based Layered Architecture

This project aims to investigate dynamic end-to-end QoS provisioning in IP networks by implementing prototypes of a QoS architecture for a carrier-grade DiffServ core network. It also aims to support a wide range of applications by providing a QoS toolkit/API and contribute to standardization bodies.

hhunter
Download Presentation

Adaptive Resource Control for QoS Using an IP-based Layered Architecture

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. (IST-1999-10077)Adaptive Resource Control for QoSUsing an IP-based Layered Architecture Bert F. Koch Stefano Salsano http://www-st.inf.tu-dresden.de/aquila/

  2. Outline • Project Introduction • AQUILA QoS Architecture • Traffic Engineering Aspects • Further Project Activities • AQUILA Approach to SLS • Future Plans (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  3. Outline • Project Introduction • AQUILA QoS Architecture • Traffic Engineering Aspects • Further Project Activities • AQUILA Approach to SLS • Future Plans (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  4. Consortium I&C manufacturer SAG Siemens (Co-ordinator), Germany BAG Bertelsmann mediaSystems, Germany DTA T-Nova Deutsche Telekom, Germany TAA Telekom Austria, Austria ELI Elisa Communications, Finland TPS Polish Telecom, Poland NTU National Technical University of Athens, Greece WUT Warsaw University of Technology, Poland COR CoRiTel, Italy TUD Dresden University of Technology, Germany SPU Salzburg Research, Austria QSY Q-Systems, Greece Internet ServiceProviders and Network Operators Universities and ResearchInstitutes Web applicationprovider (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  5. Work Break Down Structure • Workpackage 0: Project Management • Workpackage Group 1: System Architecture and Traffic Issues • WP 1.1: Requirement Analysis • WP 1.2: Specification • WP 1.3: Traffic Studies and Engineering • Workpackage Group 2: Prototype Implementation • WP 2.1: Service and Resource Control • WP 2.2: QoS aware Applications and User Services • WP 2.3: Distributed QoS Measurements • Workpackage Group 3: Integration and Trial • WP 3.1: System and Network Integration • WP 3.2: Trials and Measurements • WP 3.3: Exploitation and Business Models (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  6. Main Objectives • Investigate dynamic end-to-end QoS Provisioning in IP Networks • Implement Prototypes of a QoS Architecture for a Carrier Grade DiffServ Core Network • Support a wide Range of Applications by providing a QoS Toolkit / API • Continuously analyse Customer Requirements, Market Situations and Technological Trends and develop Business Models • Contribute to Standardisation Bodies like IETF, ITU, ETSI, etc. (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  7. End-user Application Toolkit to request QoS Inter-Domain QoS DiffServ Domain ISP B Resource Control Layer RCL Edge Device Edge Device Edge Device ED Web- Server Host Host Evaluation of Admission and Traffic Control Algorithms Distributed QoS Measurement Core Router Core Router Core Router Main Innovations Scalable and flexible Admission Control and Resource Management DiffServ Domain ISP A Distributed QoS Measurement ISP Internet Service ProviderRCL Resource Control Layer end-to-end Quality of Service (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  8. Design Goals • Scalable Architecture • Distributed building blocks • Autonomous operation of elements • Failure Proof • Failure of an element should only degrade (if at all), not disable the operation of other elements • Based on DiffServ Core Network • Use of existing, commercial routers • Enable migration path from current networks (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  9. Outline • Project Introduction • AQUILA QoS Architecture • Traffic Engineering Aspects • Further Project Activities • AQUILA Approach to SLS • Future Plans (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  10. Resource Control Layer (RCL) • Tasks of the Resource Control Layer • Admission Control to limit the amount of prioritised traffic • Resource Management • QoS Interface • Design Goals • Simpler than ATM (no explicit reservation along the data path) • Scalable approach for Admission Control (distributed Admission Control, separation of Admission Control and Resource Management) (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  11. Resource Control Monitoring Probing Results Consideration of Network Load Resource Control Agent Used resources resources Admission Control End-user Application Toolkit End-user Application Toolkit QoS Request Admission Control Agent Admission Control Agent settings (routing...) QoS Request QoS Request Settings Settings Scalable Architecture for RCL Resource Control Layer Core Router Core Router Core Router Edge Router Edge Router Access Network Access Network ISP Domain (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  12. Resource Control Layer (1) • Basic Idea of DiffServ Network • Provide some (fixed) prioritised traffic classes within the network • Guarantee QoS by limiting amount of prioritised traffic at the network edge (limited resources) • Additional Benefit of the Resource Control Layer • Dynamically shift resources between network edges (resource pools) • Take into account the actual resource usage of the network(2nd Trial) (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  13. Resource Control Layer (2) • Admission Control Agent • Authenticates user • Authorises and checks request • Locates ingress and/or egress edge router (roles) • Requests resources from the resource control agent • Admits / rejects new flows • Installs policies in ingress router • Resource Control Agent • Manages resources • Checks availability of requested resources • (Re-)distributes resources as needed (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  14. sub-area Domain subordinated sub-area Resource Pools • Resource Limits • Limit amount of QoS traffic from each edge router • Group neighboured Routers • Limit amount of QoS traffic from each group • Dynamic Distribution • Dynamically shift resources within group • Hierarchical Structure • “Groups of groups” (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  15. Outline • Project Introduction • AQUILA QoS Architecture • Traffic Engineering Aspects • Further Project Activities • AQUILA Approach to SLS • Future Plans (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  16. Network Services • Characterisation • Delivery of services to the customer • Defined by the network operator • Provides a specific QoS, expressed by statistical or deterministic statements about delay, loss, ... • Implementation • A network service is implemented by a traffic class • Usage • The End-user Application Toolkit maps application demands to network services • Example: Premium CBR for IP Telephony and Voice Trunking Goal: only a few Network Services to allow clear service Differentiation (wrt QoS objectives) (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  17. Overview of Traffic Handling Approach PROVISIONING Configuration ofTRAFFICCONTROL Limits forADMISSIONCONTROL (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  18. Traffic Classes (1) Customer The network operator offersthe NS to the customer Network Services Network services are mappedinto traffic classes Network operator Traffic Classes DSCP, scheduling and queuingalgorithms (e.g. WFQ, RED), router configuration, admission control rules (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  19. Traffic Classes (2) • Five Traffic Classes have been specified • … as well as the related Traffic Control Mechanisms in the Routers TCL 1 High priority Packet departs TCL 2 PQ Packet arrives Classifier TCL 3 Low priority WFQ TCL 4 TCL STD (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  20. Admission Control • Traffic Characterisation based on token bucket parameters declaration • Admission Control Algorithmstake into account the traffic parameters specified in the reservation request and compare with the provisioned admission control rate limits and the already allocated resources. • Specific Admission Control Algorithmshave been defined for the different traffic classes and different (high speed / low speed) access links. (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  21. Provisioning • Initial Provisioning • Building Resource Pools • Resource pools are built when it is useful to dynamically share a bottleneck link among a set of access links Constraints on Traffic Classusage per Link ACrate limits Initial provisioningalgorithm Expected traffic matrix Provisionedrates per link Topology and routing (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  22. Outline • Project Introduction • AQUILA QoS Architecture • Traffic Engineering Aspects • Further Project Activities • AQUILA Approach to SLS • Future Plans (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  23. End-user Application Toolkit (EAT) • Middleware between QoS Network and Application • Front end for access network • QoS portal for application (legacy and QoS aware) • Alternative, flexible approach for evaluating QoS reservations • EAT is requester of QoS reservation • The requester may be the sender, receiver or a third party • The requester initiates the reservation • The requester is charged for the service (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  24. ACA Objectives End-user Application Toolkit Proxies • Enable Access to QoS to non QoS aware Legacy Applications • Support QoS aware Applications (RSVP, DiffServ) / Support various QoS Request Methods • Provide a Methodology and a Programming Interface to support the Construction of new QoS aware Applications • Provide an End-user friendly QoS Access Control plane Data plane API Network QoS (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  25. Distributed QoS MeasurementsPacket Level • Measurement of end-to-end Parameters via Probes • Examples: one-way delay, delay variation, packet loss • Collection of Performance Monitoring and QoS Parameters from Routers • Definition and Implementation of Synthetic Flow Load Generators for Measurements of end-to-end QoS • Storage of all Measurement Data in Measurement Database (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  26. E2E E2E Synthetic End-to-End Load EAT Probing Reser-vation Edge Device Edge Device Host Host Probe Probe Monitoring Results Resource Control Traffic Control Admission Control Core Router Core Router Core Router test description measurement database Measurements (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  27. Tasks in the First Trial (Feb/Mar 2001) • Use Real Life Applications to “get a feel” • To supplement the Environment with generated Quality Traffic • To measure the achieved Network Traffic Characteristics • To complement the measured Data with subjective User Impressions of the Applications‘ Performance/Behaviour • To evaluate the measured Data • To process all Information and provide Feedback to the othre WPs for further Developments/Refinements • To support the Dissemination of the Results (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  28. Trial at Three Different Sites • Warsaw (Polish Telecom) • Reference Site • Special Focus on Streaming Media / Video on Demand • Helsinki (Elisa Communications) • Site with various Access Technologies (ADSL, 10 Mbps Ethernet, WLAN) • Special Focus on realistic customer/end-user environments and different environments and usage (home, office, public access zone) • Vienna (Telekom Austria) • Site with homogenous Layer 2 (Ethernet) • Special Focus on low bandwidth real-time applications, VoIP, Multi-user network games (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  29. Outline • Project Introduction • AQUILA QoS Architecture • Traffic Engineering Aspects • Further Project Activities • AQUILA Approach to SLS • Future Plans (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  30. Standardisation Issues • IETF Activities • Joint preparation with TEQUILA and CADENUS for a BoF session at the Dec 2000 IETF Meeting in San Diego • Goal is to start a new Working Group on Service Level Specification (SLS) • AQUILA EAT-ACA interface modelled in accordance to the TEQUILA draft (draft-tequila-sls-00.txt) • AQUILA draft on Network Services submitted(draft-salsano-aquila-sls-00.txt) • Contribution to SLS framework draft(draft-manyfolks-sls-framework-00.txt) (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  31. AQUILA Approach to SLS • In the AQUILA architecture a “Reservation Request” is sent to the Admission Control Agent (ACA) by the “End-user Application Toolkit” (EAT) • A Reservation Request specifies a Service Level Agreement QMTool Application Reservation Request EAToolkit RCA ACA Application Access Network H ACA EAToolkit ED CR ACA Access Network H CR ED CR CR H – Host ISP BR ED – Edge Device BR – Border Router Core DiffServ Network CR – CoreRouter (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  32. AQUILA SLS Draft to IETF • Following input from TEQUILA (draft “Service Level Specification Semantics and Parameters”) we have described the semantic content of our SLS trying to align the terminology (see section 3 of our draft) • Most of the concepts are very similar • The most interesting difference is the concept of “predefined SLS types” (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  33. Semantic Content of SLS draft-aquila draft-tequila • SLS type • Scope • Flow Identification • Traffic description and conformance test • - • Performance Guarantees • Service schedule • - • - • Scope • Flow Identification • Traffic conformance test • Excess Treatment • Performance Guarantees • Service schedule • Reliabilty (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  34. Network Services • There has been lot of discussion in the SLS mailing list on the issue of “Well Known Services” vs. “Custom Services” • “Well Known Services” restrict the definition of new services, but are very simple to handle • “Custom” network services allow freedom in specifying the QoS parameters ... , but may be very difficult to handle (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  35. Predefined SLS Types (1) • AQUILA Network Services are defined in terms of predefined values for the parameters (e.g. traffic descriptors, QoS requirements…) and of restrictions on the allowed combination of parameters • A “predefined SLS type” is defined in terms of the generic SLS description • A "predefined SLS type" simplifies the generic SLS description as it fixes values (or range of values) for a subset of the parameters in the generic SLS. It may also fix some relationships or dependencies between some parameters (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  36. Predefined SLS Types (2) • This approach simplifies the SLS negotiation procedures and the SLS mapping into network internal mechanisms, yet it is more flexible than having “globally well known” services • The framework is flexible enough to support both Custom Services and Predefined Services • Predefined Services may play a fundamental role in SLS negotiation • The use of Predefined Services is an option to the network provider (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  37. Outline • Project Introduction • AQUILA QoS Architecture • Traffic Engineering Aspects • Further Project Activities • AQUILA Approach to SLS • Future Plans (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  38. Future Project Plans (1) • Architecture • Inter-Domain scenarios • SIBBS • SLS between ISPs • Reservation aggregation • MPLS • VPN • QoS traffic engineering • MPLS-DiffServ interworking • Multicast reservations • Resource control loop (feedback from measurement to resource control) (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  39. Future Project Plans (2) • Support of Applications • RSVP as QoS signalling protocol • Application Programming interface (API) • Management • Administration of network services • Control of resource distribution parameters • Measurement • Improved load generators for service verification • Provide measurements for RCL feedback (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25-26.01.2001

  40. (IST-1999-10077)Adaptive Resource Control for QoSUsing an IP-based Layered Architecture Thank you foryour attention ! http://www-st.inf.tu-dresden.de/aquila/

More Related