1 / 13

MSTP-TE Load Balancing: Some results

COBRA Project. MSTP-TE Load Balancing: Some results. Benchmarking Carrier Ethernet Technologies Session AI.3 Krakow, Poland - April 30, 2008 Rémi Clavier - Orange Labs. Goals & Assumptions. Input data. Work done in collaboration with ALF Topology Define a common "Reference Topology"

jyotika
Download Presentation

MSTP-TE Load Balancing: Some results

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. COBRA Project MSTP-TE Load Balancing:Some results Benchmarking Carrier Ethernet Technologies Session AI.3 Krakow, Poland - April 30, 2008 Rémi Clavier - Orange Labs

  2. Goals & Assumptions

  3. Input data • Work done in collaboration with ALF • Topology • Define a common "Reference Topology" • Define "variations" from this topology • To have a more exhaustive analysis • To take into account realistic FT aggregation topologies • Matrix • Define a common (more or less) realistic traffic matrix including • http,HSI, VoIP • Pear to Pear • IPTv • VPNs • Define variation from this Matrix • To try to catch P2P / P2MP influence

  4. Experiments

  5. Some definitions • For each "variation", different experiments were done • CL/CO • CL (as Connection Less) • The Control Plane is the 802.1Q one (MSTP with 1, 3 or 6 trees) • The Management plane set the MSTP's parameters of the Control Plane • CO (as Connection Oriented) • No Control Plane, the forwarding is positioned by the management plane • LB/SP (for CO only) • LB (aka Load Balancing) • The tool tries to optimize (maximize) the load balancing over the full network • SP (aka Shortest Path) • The tool tries to optimize (minimize) the sum of the hops for all flows over the full network • A route is "acceptable" only if no link is overloaded over the full Network • MU/UN • MU (aka Multicast) • UN ( aka Unicast)

  6. Variations of the topology for the experiment • V0 • Reference Topology, aggregation network fully meshed • All links 10 G • TV dispatcher directly connected to the aggregation Network • V0b • Reference Topology , aggregation network fully meshed • All DSLAM links 1G ; All other links (except one) of the Aggregation Network at 10G • TV dispatcher directly connected to the aggregation Network • V1 • Reference Topology, aggregation network fully meshed • All links 10 G • TV dispatcher outside the aggregation Network (core network) • V1b • Reference Topology , aggregation network fully meshed • All DSLAM links 1G ; All other links (except one) of the Aggregation Network at 10G • TV dispatcher outside the aggregation Network (core network) • V3 • Reference Topology but Aggregation network not meshed (Ring Aggregation topology) • All DSLAM links 1G ; All other links (except one) of the Aggregation Network at 10G • TV dispatcher outside the aggregation Network (core network)

  7. Partial results

  8. Results criteria and format • Three major indicators chosen jointly with ALF (1 curve, two values) • PFD curve • Probability Density Function • The probability that the load (in term of capacity of the link) is inside a given interval • The CDF is the integral of the PDF and not used directly to compare results • The ME value • The average of the PDF function • May give information about the fact that the less loaded links are preferentially chosen • The SD value • The root mean square of the PDF curve • shows the dispersion of the load of links around the full network

  9. Fully Meshed Aggregation network • All Links 10G • TV inside aggregation Network V0 • Analyze (to be discuss) • Multicast give a non negligible gain against "multi unicast" • For MU, no difference between CO and CL • For UN, CO seems better than CL • FT Remarks (from detailed results) • 3 trees are enough (no specific gain with 6 trees)

  10. Fully Meshed Aggregation network • All Links (except one) 10G for the aggregation Networks, DSLAM links 1G • TV dispatcher outside aggregation Network V1b • Analyze • No "big" difference between CO and CL • LB give a better REm and a well better SD than SP in a CO context • PDF curve shows that CO/SP doesn't find a correct load balancing

  11. Let us try to conclude …... keeping the door open for discussion

  12. Preliminary conclusions • With MSTP, paths are constrained to follow "trees" • At first sight, this constraint could decrease load balancing performances compared to ELS networks • But, with a TE tool, MSTP gives the same results as CO networks in terms of load balancing • For a very loaded network and/or a network with links with different capacities of links • A centralized optimization gives better results (load balancing) than optimization based solely on the calculation of a Shortest Path • The centralized optimization tool gives equivalent performances for CL or CO networks with LB routing ("TE") algorithm • Other "well known" properties of MSTP are not impacted by load balancing optimization • Low cost • "Bad" convergence time • Compliant to standard • Natively multicast…

  13. Thanks for your attention

More Related