1 / 8

Tunnel congestion Feedback simulation (draft-wei-tunnel-congestion-feedback)

Tunnel congestion Feedback simulation (draft-wei-tunnel-congestion-feedback). IETF 90 Toronto, Canada. Xinpeng Wei Lingli Deng Lei Zhu. Background: Problem Statement.

kiral
Download Presentation

Tunnel congestion Feedback simulation (draft-wei-tunnel-congestion-feedback)

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. Tunnel congestion Feedback simulation (draft-wei-tunnel-congestion-feedback) IETF 90 Toronto, Canada Xinpeng Wei Lingli Deng Lei Zhu

  2. Background: Problem Statement • Nature of end user flows, length of sessions can lead to significant variability in aggregated bandwidth demands and latency in managed networks such as the mobile backhaul, and DC networks. • Tunnels are widely deployed to carry end user flows in network (both backhaul networks and DC networks), and the congestion experienced in a tunnel can be calculated according to RFC 6040, Appendix C. • However, there is no standard feedback mechanism for congestion information from the Egress router/switch to the Ingress router/switch.

  3. Background: Congestion Feedback Model - Egress collects congestion information (e.g. volume) experienced in the tunnel; - Egress feeds back congestion information (e.g. volume) to Ingress; - Ingress controls traffic entering the tunnel accordingly to reduce tunnel congestion. The solution aims to provide a network-based congestion control.

  4. Purpose of the Simulation • Whether the network-based congestion control has undesirable impacts on e2e TCP congestion control? • If any impact exists, in which aspects and how does it affect the e2e TCP CC?

  5. Simulation Scenario Testbed: NS3. SEx: Sender, Rate: 1Mbps. REx: Receiver. IR1-x: Tunnel Ingress. ER1: Tunnel Egress. Rx: Router, ECN-enabled. Manager action: Random Drop. IPFIX is used for congestion information feedback.

  6. Simulation Result:e2e delay, Packet loss and throughput Average e2e delay: In case of tunnel control: 0.027071s. In case of no tunnel control: 0.027615s. Average packet loss: In case of tunnel control: 0.028127%. In case of no tunnel control: 0.029859%. Packet throughput (per second): In case of tunnel control: Ingress=3300, Egress=3260. In case of no tunnel control: Ingress=3320, Egress=3260.

  7. Conclusion • Tunnel-based congestion control doesn’t change the behavior of e2e congestion control. • The tunnel congestion control is complementary with e2e ECN control. • The tunnel congestion feedback provides network administrator with network congestion level information that can be used as an input for network management.

  8. Next Steps • Continue to collect feedback from TSVWG community. • Seek adoption as a working group document.

More Related