1 / 20

Overhead and Performance Study of the General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) Protocol

Overhead and Performance Study of the General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) Protocol. Xiaoming Fu (Uni Goettingen) Henning Schulzrinne (Columbia Uni) Hannes Tschofenig (Siemens) Christian Dickmann, Dieter Hogrefe (Uni Goettingen). Overview. Background Terminology Operation Overview

korbin
Download Presentation

Overhead and Performance Study of the General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) Protocol

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. Overhead and Performance Study of the General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) Protocol Xiaoming Fu (Uni Goettingen) Henning Schulzrinne (Columbia Uni) Hannes Tschofenig (Siemens) Christian Dickmann, Dieter Hogrefe (Uni Goettingen)

  2. Overview • Background • Terminology • Operation Overview • Evaluation • Overhead • E2e performance • Scalability • Security • Conclusions Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  3. Background • Middlebox: interposed entity doing more than IP forwarding (NAT, firewall, cache, …) • Can also be QoS and other boxes – PHB, profile meters, AQM etc… Firewall B NAT Host A 10.1.1.4 Host D New traffic class C QoS • Not in harmony with the Internet architecture Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  4. Background • Perhaps need sort of common control plane functions for end-to-end communications • QoS is just an example of control functions • NAT, firewalls and other functions are also in consideration • One needs to perform certain configuration of such control functions before (and during) an end-to-end communication • Actually, this is somewhat re-inventing "circuit-switching" concept in ATM or telephony networks! • If we want to allow its use the Internet, a general signaling function for IP is necessary • Signaling: to install, maintain, remove states in network nodes • It needs to traverse heterogeneous IP-based nodes • It needs to cater for accommodating various controlling purposes Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  5. Network Control Signaling Protocol Examples • Path-decoupled (Client/Server) • COPS • MEGACO • DIAMETER • MIDCOM • Path-coupled • Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) IETF proposed standard for QoS signaling (03/97) • IETF NSIS (Next Steps in Signaling) with QoS signaling as first application Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  6. RSVP review • RFC 2205 • Integrated Service QoS models: GS, CLS • Per-flow reservation • Multicast flow • Limited extensibility (objects and semantics) • Refreshes: packet losses due to congestion, route changes • Not adapted to today’s needs • RFC 2961: added hop-by-hop reliability and summary refreshes • Other extensions: aggregated reservation, reservation over different networks (MPLS, 802.x) Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  7. Selected issues with RSVP • Insufficient modularity • Designed specifically for (IntServ) QoS • Difficult to accommodate new signaling applications: firewall/NATs, network diagnostics, etc. • No/difficult support for mobility • Node mobility has been an immense reality • Weak security framework and AAA support • No operator today will choose to deploy a solution without sufficient security for global Internet use Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  8. NSIS Framework (RFC 3726) • Flexible/extendable message transport • Reliability/order provisioning • Keepalive and multiplexing • Some security services • Common transport functions • Flexible/extendable multiple signalling application • Per flow QoS (IntServ) • Flow aggregate QoS (DiffServ) • Firewall and Network Address Translator (NAT) • Traffic meter configuration • And others • A two-layer split • Transport layer (NTLP or GIST): message transport • Signalling layer (NSLP): QoS NSLP, NATFW NSLP, etc. • Contains the application intelligence Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  9. NSIS Two-Layer Split NSIS Signalling Layer (NSLP) NSIS Transport Layer (NTLP) • Two names for transport layer: • NTLP (the basic concept) • GIST (the protocol implementation • General Internet Signalling Transport Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  10. GIST: NSIS Transport Layer (NTLP) • GIST responsible for • Transport signalling message through network • Finding necessary network elements • Abstraction of transport to NSLPs • NSLP do not care about transport at all Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  11. View on NSIS’ Layers NSIS router NSIS router Need QoS Need QoS! Need QoS! NSLP Stack NSLP Stack NSLP Stack NSLP Stack Here it is! Here it is! Here it is! Are you my next node? (discovery) Abstraction UDP transport NTLP Stack NTLP Stack NTLP Stack NTLP Stack NSIS Host B NSIS Host A Router without NSIS Router without NSIS NSLP View TCP connection NTLP View Network View Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  12. GIST Session Setup Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  13. Evaluation • Scalability • Can it be scalable for large number of sessions and nodes? • Extensibility and mobility • Can it be easily extended to build most signaling applications? • Can mobility be intrinsically supported? • Security • Can it be well protected without much performance penalty? • Overhead • Will the overhead added by NSIS be too large? Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  14. Extensibility and mobility • NSIS allows • GIST use of any types of discovery mechanism • Definition of any new NSLPs • node mobility: thru the use of independent NSIS session identifiers • Support a large variety of transport protocols • SCTP and PR-SCTP • TCP and its variants (both loss and delay based) • UDP (and even DCCP) • In the implementation level: • The GIST daemon and GIST-API are developed with sufficient modularity/independency on underlying platforms and NSLPs • Currently we support xBSD, Linux and MacOS: fairly easy to port Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  15. Performance testing: testbed Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  16. Performance/scalability: 3 hops Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  17. Overhead Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  18. Security • Two-layer security • Interconnected! • Transport layer (NTLP) • Securing signaling transport • Using TCP/SCTP with TLS • Certificates • Discovery phase: use of cookies • Signaling layer • Authentication and authorization • Policy decisions (e.g., user allowed to load filter rule?) Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  19. Conclusions • Extensible IP signaling framework (NSIS) tries to address the mobility, complexity, transport, and security issues in RSVP • Not only QoS signaling, but also generic signaling for any type of middlebox configuration • Fundamental building block: GIST protocol • GIST overhead is higher than RSVP but the complexity worth the added extensibility, modularity. • GIST performance is comparable with RSVP, with good scalability • GIST/NSIS implementation: http://user.cs.uni-goettingen.de/~nsis Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

  20. Thank you! Xiaoming Fu (fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de)

More Related