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

Outline Problems Problems Strategy Strategy Conclusions Conclusions

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] 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 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) 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 [2] Y. Liu, H. Zhang, W. Gong, D. Towsley, ``On the Interaction Between Overlay Routing and Underlying Routing," IEEE INFOCOM'05 [2] Y. Liu, H. Zhang, W. Gong, D. Towsley, ``On the Interaction Between Overlay Routing and Underlying Routing," IEEE INFOCOM'05

An Integrated Strategy Outline: A theoretical foundation A theoretical foundation An integrated control structure An integrated control structure

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 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 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 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) 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) CoS-aware access control CoS-agnotic intra-domain control CoS-agnotic inter-domain control QoS-aware end-to-end control

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 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 They are highly scalable and can deal with tussles and network diversities

Integrated Control Structure Outline: IP layer and overlay integration IP layer and overlay integration IP layer and transport layer integration IP layer and transport layer integration

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

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 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 To minimize the effect of IP rate adaptation for TE on transport layer rate guaranteed flowsSolution: Implementing three CoSs at IP layer: BE, AF with a target rate, and an upper bounded rate service 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 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 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 All the non-adaptive BE end-to-end flows (e.g., BE UDP) are mapped to the BE CoS

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 are integrated, achieving non-conflicting design objectives they provide rich service quality features, including QoS, TE, and FFR they provide rich service quality features, including QoS, TE, and FFR They can deal with network diversities and tussles They can deal with network diversities and tussles They enjoy provable properties such as scalability, stability, and optimality 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