PhD Student: Ana Novak Supervisors: Prof Peter Taylor & Dr Darryl Veitch Active Probing Using Packet-Pair Probing to Estimate Packet Size and Packet Arrival.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction into Simulation Basic Simulation Modeling.
Advertisements

CS433: Modeling and Simulation
Modeling & Simulation. System Models and Simulation Framework for Modeling and Simulation The framework defines the entities and their Relationships that.
Recent Progress on a Statistical Network Calculus Jorg Liebeherr Department of Computer Science University of Virginia.
Shivkumar Kalyanaraman Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1 ECSE-4690: Experimental Networking Informal Quiz: Prob/Stat Shiv Kalyanaraman:
PhD Student: Ana Novak Supervisors: Prof Peter Taylor & Dr Darryl Veitch Melbourne University Active Probing Using Packet-Pair Probing to Estimate Packet.
Queuing Analysis Based on noted from Appendix A of Stallings Operating System text 6/10/20151.
 2003 G.L. Li and V. O.K. Li, The University of Hong Kong 1 Networks of Queues: Myth and Reality Guang-Liang Li and Victor O.K. Li The University of Hong.
Ordering and Consistent Cuts Presented By Biswanath Panda.
#11 QUEUEING THEORY Systems Fall 2000 Instructor: Peter M. Hahn
ECS 152A Acknowledgement: slides from S. Kalyanaraman & B.Sikdar
Statistical Inference Chapter 12/13. COMP 5340/6340 Statistical Inference2 Statistical Inference Given a sample of observations from a population, the.
Service Disciplines for Guaranteed Performance Service Hui Zhang, “Service Disciplines for Guaranteed Performance Service in Packet-Switching Networks,”
Introduction to the Continuous Distributions
Simulation with ArenaChapter 2 – Fundamental Simulation Concepts Discrete Event “Hand” Simulation of a GI/GI/1 Queue.
8 Statistical Intervals for a Single Sample CHAPTER OUTLINE
1 End-to-End Detection of Shared Bottlenecks Sridhar Machiraju and Weidong Cui Sahara Winter Retreat 2003.
Little’s Theorem Examples Courtesy of: Dr. Abdul Waheed (previous instructor at COE)
1 Active Probing for Available Bandwidth Estimation Sridhar Machiraju UC Berkeley OASIS Retreat, Jan 2005 Joint work with D.Veitch, F.Baccelli, A.Nucci,
Simulation Waiting Line. 2 Introduction Definition (informal) A model is a simplified description of an entity (an object, a system of objects) such that.
Lecture 10 Comparison and Evaluation of Alternative System Designs.
Queueing Theory.
7/3/2015© 2007 Raymond P. Jefferis III1 Queuing Systems.
8-1 Introduction In the previous chapter we illustrated how a parameter can be estimated from sample data. However, it is important to understand how.
Internet Queuing Delay Introduction How many packets in the queue? How long a packet takes to go through?
CMPE 252A: Computer Networks Review Set:
Discrete Distributions
Particle Filtering in Network Tomography
Verification & Validation
Exponential and Chi-Square Random Variables
Probability Review Thinh Nguyen. Probability Theory Review Sample space Bayes’ Rule Independence Expectation Distributions.
1 Exponential distribution: main limitation So far, we have considered Birth and death process and its direct application To single server queues With.
Optimal Degree Distribution for LT Codes with Small Message Length Esa Hyytiä, Tuomas Tirronen, Jorma Virtamo IEEE INFOCOM mini-symposium
Prof. Dr. S. K. Bhattacharjee Department of Statistics University of Rajshahi.
Random Sampling, Point Estimation and Maximum Likelihood.
Packet-Pair Dispersion for Bandwidth Probing: Probabilistic and Sample-Path Approaches M. J. Tunnicliffe Faculty of Computing, Information Systems and.
Estimating Bandwidth of Mobile Users Sept 2003 Rohit Kapoor CSD, UCLA.
A Queuing Theory Approach to Network Path Parameter Estimation Péter Hága Krisztián Diriczi Gábor Vattay István Csabai Attila Pásztor Darryl Veitch.
Network Design and Analysis-----Wang Wenjie Queueing System IV: 1 © Graduate University, Chinese academy of Sciences. Network Design and Analysis Wang.
Development of a New Efficient and Accurate Available Bandwidth Estimation Method Péter Hága Attila Pásztor István Csabai Darryl Veitch Viktória Hunyadi.
Hung X. Nguyen and Matthew Roughan The University of Adelaide, Australia SAIL: Statistically Accurate Internet Loss Measurements.
Statistical Applications Binominal and Poisson’s Probability distributions E ( x ) =  =  xf ( x )
TexPoint fonts used in EMF.
Modeling and Analysis of Computer Networks
1 Chapters 8 Overview of Queuing Analysis. Chapter 8 Overview of Queuing Analysis 2 Projected vs. Actual Response Time.
CS551: End-to-End Packet Dynamics Paxon’99 Christos Papadopoulos (
Copyright © 2010, 2007, 2004 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Section 7-1 Review and Preview.
Lecture 4: Statistics Review II Date: 9/5/02  Hypothesis tests: power  Estimation: likelihood, moment estimation, least square  Statistical properties.
Detecting the Long-Range Dependence in the Internet Traffic with Packet Trains Péter Hága, Gábor Vattay Department Of Physics of Complex Systems Eötvös.
Multiplicative Wavelet Traffic Model and pathChirp: Efficient Available Bandwidth Estimation Vinay Ribeiro.
S2 Chapter 2: Poisson Distribution Dr J Frost Last modified: 20 th September 2015.
PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS FOR ENGINEERING Hossein Sameti Department of Computer Engineering Sharif University of Technology Mean, Variance, Moments and.
Lecture 3: Statistics Review I Date: 9/3/02  Distributions  Likelihood  Hypothesis tests.
PathChirp Spatio-Temporal Available Bandwidth Estimation Vinay Ribeiro Rolf Riedi, Richard Baraniuk Rice University.
The M/M/ N / N Queue etc COMP5416 Advanced Network Technologies.
Maciej Stasiak, Mariusz Głąbowski Arkadiusz Wiśniewski, Piotr Zwierzykowski Model of the Nodes in the Packet Network Chapter 10.
Péter Hága Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary European Conference on Complex Systems 2008 Jerusalem, Israel.
Development of a QoE Model Himadeepa Karlapudi 03/07/03.
Precision Measurements with the EVERGROW Traffic Observatory Péter Hága István Csabai.
1 Chapter 4 Fundamental Queueing System
Ex St 801 Statistical Methods Inference about a Single Population Mean (CI)
Chap 2 Network Analysis and Queueing Theory 1. Two approaches to network design 1- “Build first, worry later” approach - More ad hoc, less systematic.
Random Variables r Random variables define a real valued function over a sample space. r The value of a random variable is determined by the outcome of.
Courtesy Piggybacking: Supporting Differentiated Services in Multihop Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Wei LiuXiang Chen Yuguang Fang WING Dept. of ECE University.
Distributed Systems Lecture 6 Global states and snapshots 1.
Models of Traffic Flow 1.
Measuring Service in Multi-Class Networks
Internet Queuing Delay Introduction
Discrete Event “Hand” Simulation of a GI/GI/1 Queue
Presentation transcript:

PhD Student: Ana Novak Supervisors: Prof Peter Taylor & Dr Darryl Veitch Active Probing Using Packet-Pair Probing to Estimate Packet Size and Packet Arrival Rate Department of Mathematics & Statistics Melbourne University

Introduction Concept of a Packet NAME: Billy Bob MESSAGE: How are you today Sarah Jo? Billy BobSarah Jo

NAME: Billy Bob Introduction Concept of a Packet NAME: Billy Bob MESSAGE: How are you today Sarah Jo? Billy BobSarah Jo NAME: Billy Bob DEPO NAME: Billy Bob

Introduction Concept of a Packet Billy BobSarah Jo DEPO otmail.com NAME: Billy Bob MESSAGE: How are you today Sarah Jo?

Introduction Concept of a Packet Billy BobSarah Jo DEPO MESSAGE How are... NAME: Billy Bob MESSAGE: How are you today Sarah Jo? MESSAGE: How are yo today Sara MESSAGE: How are you today Sarah Jo?

Fundamental Approaches to Measurement Passive measurement  Monitoring  Typically at a point  Non-invasive  Network authority Active measurement  Injecting artificial traffic stream  End-to-End  Fundamentally invasive  Non-privileged users

Active Probing Infrastructure Time stamp; Packet header; Packet content Raw information captured:

Timestamps  Sender Monitor timestamps probe arrivals to the network.  Receiver Monitor timestamps probe departures from the network. SenderReceiver Sender Monitor:Receiver Monitor:

Timestamps  As the clocks on the sender and receiver monitors may not be synchronized we use inter-arrival and inter-departure times, rather then the end-to-end delays.

Description of the 1-hop system  Service is offered in a FIFO order.  The server processes at rate. Single Hop Model

Probe Traffic & Cross Traffic Definitions: Probe Traffic (PT) is an artificial stream of traffic, all of whose properties are known and can be modified and controlled. Cross Traffic (CT) is any traffic in the Internet that is not Probe Traffic.

Types of CT Arrivals  Single Channel (M/D/1 output)  Multi Channel (Poisson)

Packet-Pair Pairs of probes are sent periodically with period T, intra-pair spacing r and packet service time x p. Types of Probe Traffic

 Lets construct the following experiment:  Inject a packet-pair probe stream into the network s.t. probes are “back-to-back” and, where x c is the CT service time.  Output of the experiment  Probes capture 1 or 0 CT packets. Estimating Cross Traffic Size Single Channel (M/D/1 output)

 Cross Traffic packet size estimate: where is the i-th inter-departure time, is the probe service time and is the link rate. Estimating Cross Traffic Size Single Channel (M/D/1 output) To Summarize:

Estimating CT Size Example  Cross Traffic sizes: 100B, 500B, 1000B, 1500B  Respective arrival rates: 600pkt/s, 100pkt/s, 300pkt/s, 800pkt/s  Other parameters: Link rate: 2MBps; Cross Traffic packet size: 1000B; Probes packet size: 40B; Probe rate: 10pkt/s; Probe separation: 10ms Single Channel (M/D/1 output)

Estimating CT Size Example  Cross Traffic sizes: 100B, 500B, 1000B, 1500B  Respective arrival rates: 600pkt/s, 100pkt/s, 300pkt/s, 800pkt/s  Other parameters: Link rate: 2MBps; Cross Traffic packet size: 1000B; Probes packet size: 40B; Probe rate: 10pkt/s; Probe separation: s Single Channel (M/D/1 output)

Method 1: Back-to-back probes { M/D/1 } Method 2: Back-to-back probes { Poisson } Method 3: Not back-to-back probes { Poisson } Estimating CT Arrival Rate (Assumption: Single CT size)

Incentive: Exploit the same probe stream used for estimating Cross Traffic size. Recap. Experiment: Inject a stream of n packet-pairs into the network with back-to-back probes (array of inter-arrival times) Recap. Outcome: Array of inter-departure times corresponding to catching 1 CT packet (success) or 0 CT packets (failure). Model: Numerical outcome of the experiment is a r.v. Y with a Binomial distribution, B(n,p) Method 1: Back-to-back probes Single Channel (M/D/1 output)

 Cross Traffic arrival rate estimate in [pkt/s]:  For large values of n, if experimental value of Y is y, the 95.4% confidence interval for arrival rate estimate is: Method 1: Back-to-back probes Single Channel (M/D/1 output)

Method 1: Back-to-back probes Single Channel (M/D/1 output) x c =0.9 Predicted confidence interval Example x c = 0.9ms CT a.r. = 1000 pkt/s n = 1000 p-p best c.i = + /- 10%

Mathematical Incentive: Rectify the problem of obtaining very low probabilities of packet capture, which result in a large confidence interval for arrival rate estimate (eliminate the upper bound ). Physical Incentive: CT Traffic can be better approximated with a multi-channel (Poisson) arrivals. Experiment: Inject a stream of n packet-pairs into the network with back-to-back probes (array of inter-arrival times). Method 2: Back-to-back probes Multi Channel (Poisson)

Model: Numerical outcome of the experiment is a r.v. Y with a Poisson distribution,. Method 2: Back-to-back probes Multi Channel (Poisson) Outcome: Array of inter-departure times corresponding to capturing m packets in an interval of length r.

Method 2: Back-to-back probes  The probability of capturing m packets in an interval of length r:  The sample average is the MLE of where Multi Channel (Poisson)

Method 2: Back-to-back probes  Respective exact 95% confidence interval is: where is the inverse of the chi-square cumulative distribution function. Multi Channel (Poisson)

Method 2: Back-to-back probes Multi Channel (Poisson) Predicted confidence interval Example x c = 0.01s CT a.r. = 1000 pkt/s n = 1000 p-p best c.i = + /- 1%

Incentive: Reduce invasiveness. In a multi-hop this is the inevitable effect. Experiment: Inject a stream of n probe-pairs into the network with intra-pair separation r, such that we can capture at least k =ceil( r / x c) CT packets (i.e. array of inter-arrival times). Outcome: Array of inter-departure times, of which some correspond to capturing m packets in an interval of length r. Model: It will become apparent later… Method 3: Not back-to-back probes Multi Channel (Poisson)

Busy and Idle Periods System passes through alternating cycles of busy and idle periods.  Busy period is when queue is never empty.  Idle period is when queue is always empty.

Why do we care about busy and idle periods?  If the probes share the same busy period the inter-departure times let us know how many packets arrived in time interval r.  If probes are in different busy periods then the inter-departure times don’t give us any conclusive information.

If two probes within a packet-pair: Peaks vs. Noise  Share the same busy period then the corresponding inter- departure time will contribute to a formation of a peak.  Don’t share the same busy period then the corresponding inter- departure time will contribute to a formation of noise.

 As it stands, it looks like we could model the numerical outcomes from the set B as a Poisson distribution. But, that is not quite true. Why? Set of all measured inter-departure times A Inter-departure times which are a result of probes sharing the same busy period (i.e. peaks) B Filtering-out noise

Problem: If then one of the following happened: Method 3: Not back-to-back probes Multi Channel (Poisson)  First probe saw the busy period and was delayed, as a result we caught an integer number of packets.  We cannot tell from the inter- departure time that 4 consecutive packets have arrived.

Therefore if probes are not back-to-back then the outcome that two probe-packets occur in the same busy period is dependent on how many packets were caught. Method 3: Not back-to-back probes Multi Channel (Poisson)  If a number of CT packets we caught is greater then k, then the two probe packets must necessarily be in the same busy period.  The converse does not hold.

Conclusion: If an inter-departure time, then we filter it out. Method 3: Not back-to-back probes Multi Channel (Poisson) Set of all measured inter-departure times A Inter-departure times which are a result of probes sharing the same busy period (i.e. peaks) B C Inter-departure times which are a result of probes sharing the same busy period and are greater then r.

Method 3: Not back-to-back probes  Probability of capturing k CT packets in the interval of length r if we exclude the events of capturing {0,1,…,m} CT packets is: Multi Channel (Poisson) Model: Numerical outcome of the filtered experiment is a r.v. Y with a Truncated-Poisson distribution.

Method 3: Not back-to-back probes  The mean is :  The second moment is:  The variance is: Multi Channel (Poisson)

Mixed Truncated Poisson Distribution  After each filtration, number of valid experiments (i.e. successful probe-pairs) reduces.  Can we preserve the valid data i.e. ?  Yes. The answer is the Mixed Truncated Poisson Distribution.  where and is the weight of the i-th factor. Multi Channel (Poisson)

 Complete the algorithm for finding an optimal intra-pair separation.  Extend Methods for the traffic that comprises of multiple CT sizes.  Find the exact distribution for the Method 3.  Use Takacs integrodifferential equation to determine if probes are in the same busy period for an M/G/1 queue (continuous case).  Solve the problem for a multiple hop case. Future Work