CS 268: Lecture 8 (Router Support for Congestion Control) Ion Stoica February 19, 2002.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
RED-PD: RED with Preferential Dropping Ratul Mahajan Sally Floyd David Wetherall.
Advertisements

Computer Networking Lecture 20 – Queue Management and QoS.
1 CNPA B Nasser S. Abouzakhar Queuing Disciplines Week 8 – Lecture 2 16 th November, 2009.
CSIT560 Internet Infrastructure: Switches and Routers Active Queue Management Presented By: Gary Po, Henry Hui and Kenny Chong.
Congestion Control Reasons: - too many packets in the network and not enough buffer space S = rate at which packets are generated R = rate at which receivers.
ECE 4450:427/527 - Computer Networks Spring 2015
CS 268: Lecture 8 Router Support for Congestion Control Ion Stoica Computer Science Division Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences.
T. S. Eugene Ngeugeneng at cs.rice.edu Rice University1 COMP/ELEC 429 Introduction to Computer Networks Lecture 16: Congestion control II Slides used with.
Packet Switches with Output Buffers and Shared Buffer Packet switches with output buffers, or shared buffer Delay Guarantees Fairness Fair Queueing Deficit.
CS 4700 / CS 5700 Network Fundamentals Lecture 12: Router-Aided Congestion Control (Drop it like it’s hot) Revised 3/18/13.
Ion Stoica, Scott Shenker, and Hui Zhang SIGCOMM’98, Vancouver, August 1998 subsequently IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 11(1), 2003, pp Presented.
1 Packet Switches with Output and Shared Buffer. 2 Packet Switches with Output Buffers and Shared Buffer Packet switches with output buffers, or shared.
The War Between Mice and Elephants Presented By Eric Wang Liang Guo and Ibrahim Matta Boston University ICNP
Networks: Congestion Control1 Congestion Control.
CS 268: Lecture 15/16 (Packet Scheduling) Ion Stoica April 8/10, 2002.
Analysis and Simulation of a Fair Queuing Algorithm
EE689 Lecture 5 Review of last lecture More on HPF RED.
Katz, Stoica F04 EECS 122: Introduction to Computer Networks Packet Scheduling and QoS Computer Science Division Department of Electrical Engineering and.
Congestion Control and Resource Allocation
Katz, Stoica F04 EECS 122: Introduction to Computer Networks TCP Variations Computer Science Division Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer.
Active Queue Management Rong Pan Cisco System EE384y Spring Quarter 2006.
ACN: Congestion Control1 Congestion Control and Resource Allocation.
Computer Networking Lecture 17 – Queue Management As usual: Thanks to Srini Seshan and Dave Anderson.
Lecture 5: Congestion Control l Challenge: how do we efficiently share network resources among billions of hosts? n Last time: TCP n This time: Alternative.
Core Stateless Fair Queueing Stoica, Shanker and Zhang - SIGCOMM 98 Rigorous fair Queueing requires per flow state: too costly in high speed core routers.
Lightweight Active Router-Queue Management for Multimedia Networking M. Parris, K. Jeffay, and F.D. Smith Department of Computer Science University of.
UCB Improvements in Core-Stateless Fair Queueing (CSFQ) Ling Huang U.C. Berkeley cml.me.berkeley.edu/~hlion.
Core Stateless Fair Queueing Stoica, Shanker and Zhang - SIGCOMM 98 Fair Queueing requires per flow state: too costly in high speed core routers Yet, some.
Computer Networking Lecture 22 – Queue Management and QoS.
Packet Scheduling From Ion Stoica. 2 Packet Scheduling  Decide when and what packet to send on output link -Usually implemented at output interface 1.
CS640: Introduction to Computer Networks Aditya Akella Lecture 20 - Queuing and Basics of QoS.
1 Queue Management Hamed Khanmirza Principles of Networking University of Tehran.
Advance Computer Networking L-5 TCP & Routers Acknowledgments: Lecture slides are from the graduate level Computer Networks course thought by Srinivasan.
ACN: CSFQ1 CSFQ Core-Stateless Fair Queueing Presented by Nagaraj Shirali Choong-Soo Lee ACN: CSFQ1.
ACN: RED paper1 Random Early Detection Gateways for Congestion Avoidance Sally Floyd and Van Jacobson, IEEE Transactions on Networking, Vol.1, No. 4, (Aug.
1 On Class-based Isolation of UDP, Short-lived and Long-lived TCP Flows by Selma Yilmaz Ibrahim Matta Computer Science Department Boston University.
Fair Queueing. 2 First-Come-First Served (FIFO) Packets are transmitted in the order of their arrival Advantage: –Very simple to implement Disadvantage:
27th, Nov 2001 GLOBECOM /16 Analysis of Dynamic Behaviors of Many TCP Connections Sharing Tail-Drop / RED Routers Go Hasegawa Osaka University, Japan.
Presented by: Peng Wang EE Department University of Delaware A Probabilistic Approach for Achieving Fair Bandwidth Allocation in CSFQ.
March 29 Scheduling ?. What is Packet Scheduling? Decide when and what packet to send on output link 1 2 Scheduler flow 1 flow 2 flow n Buffer management.
CSE 561 – Congestion Control with Network Support David Wetherall Spring 2000.
Queueing and Active Queue Management Aditya Akella 02/26/2007.
9.7 Other Congestion Related Issues Outline Queuing Discipline Avoiding Congestion.
Packet Scheduling and Buffer Management Switches S.Keshav: “ An Engineering Approach to Networking”
CS640: Introduction to Computer Networks Aditya Akella Lecture 20 - Queuing and Basics of QoS.
T. S. Eugene Ngeugeneng at cs.rice.edu Rice University1 COMP/ELEC 429 Introduction to Computer Networks Lecture 18: Quality of Service Slides used with.
T. S. Eugene Ngeugeneng at cs.rice.edu Rice University1 COMP/ELEC 429/556 Introduction to Computer Networks Weighted Fair Queuing Some slides used with.
1 Fair Queuing Hamed Khanmirza Principles of Network University of Tehran.
Spring Computer Networks1 Congestion Control Sections 6.1 – 6.4 Outline Preliminaries Queuing Discipline Reacting to Congestion Avoiding Congestion.
Providing QoS in IP Networks
Univ. of TehranIntroduction to Computer Network1 An Introduction Computer Networks An Introduction to Computer Networks University of Tehran Dept. of EE.
04/02/08 1 Packet Scheduling IT610 Prof. A. Sahoo KReSIT.
QoS & Queuing Theory CS352.
Chapter 6 Queuing Disciplines
Congestion Control and Resource Allocation
EE 122: Router Support for Congestion Control: RED and Fair Queueing
Queuing and Queue Management
COMP/ELEC 429/556 Introduction to Computer Networks
ECE 4450:427/527 - Computer Networks Spring 2017
Fair Queueing.
Computer Science Division
COMP/ELEC 429 Introduction to Computer Networks
Advanced Computer Networks
EECS 122: Introduction to Computer Networks TCP Variations
Introduction to Packet Scheduling
Congestion Control and Resource Allocation
EECS 122: Introduction to Computer Networks Packet Scheduling and QoS
Fair Queueing.
Introduction to Packet Scheduling
کنترل جریان امیدرضا معروضی.
Presentation transcript:

CS 268: Lecture 8 (Router Support for Congestion Control) Ion Stoica February 19, 2002

Router Support For Congestion Management  Traditional Internet -Congestion control mechanisms at end-systems, mainly implemented in TCP -Routers play little role  Router mechanisms affecting congestion management -Scheduling -Buffer management  Traditional routers -FIFO -Tail drop

Drawbacks of FIFO with Tail-drop  Buffer lock out by misbehaving flows  Synchronizing effect for multiple TCP flows  Burst or multiple consecutive packet drops -Bad for TCP fast recovery

FIFO Router with Two TCP Sessions

Random Early Detection (RED) Routers (Floyd & Fall 93]  Probabilistically discard packets  Probability is computed as a function of average queue length (why average?) -Use exponential averaging Discard Probability Average Queue Length 0 1 min_thmax_th

RED Advantages  Absorb burst better  Avoids synchronization  Signal end systems earlier

RED Router with Two TCP Sessions

Problems with RED  No protection: if a flow misbehaves it will hurt the other flows  Example: 1 UDP (10 Mbps) and 31 TCP’s sharing a 10 Mbps link UDP

Solution?  Round-robin among different flows [Nagle ‘87] -One queue per flow

Round-Robin Discussion  Advantages: protection among flows -Misbehaving flows will not affect the performance of well- behaving flows -FIFO does not have such a property  Disadvantages: -More complex than FIFO: per flow queue/state -Biased toward large packets – a flow receives service proportional to the number of packets (When is this bad?)

Solution?  Bit-by-bit round robin  Can you do this in practice?  No, packets cannot be preempted (why?)  …we can only approximate it

Fair Queueing (FQ) [DKS’89]  Define a fluid flow system: a system in which flows are served bit-by-bit  Then serve packets in the increasing order of their deadlines  Advantages -Each flow will receive exactly its fair rate  Note: -FQ achieves max-min fairness

Max-Min Fairness  Denote -C – link capacity -N – number of flows -r i – arrival rate  Max-min fair rate computation: 1.compute C/N 2.if there are flows i such that r i <= C/N, update C and N 3.if no, f = C/N; terminate 4.go to 1  A flow can receive at most the fair rate, i.e., min(f, r i )

Example  C = 10; r 1 = 8, r 2 = 6, r 3 = 2; N = 3  C/3 = 3.33  C = C – r3 = 8; N = 2  C/2 = 4; f = f = 4 : min(8, 4) = 4 min(6, 4) = 4 min(2, 4) = 2 10

Alternate Way to Compute Fair Rate  If link congested, compute f such that f = 4 : min(8, 4) = 4 min(6, 4) = 4 min(2, 4) = 2 10

Implementing Fair Queueing  Idea: serve packets in the order in which they would have finished transmission in the fluid flow system

Example Flow 1 (arrival traffic) Flow 2 (arrival traffic) Service in fluid flow system Packet system time

System Virtual Time: V(t)  Measure service, instead of time  V(t) slope – rate at which every active flow receives service -C – link capacity -N(t) – number of active flows in fluid flow system at time t Service in fluid flow system time V(t)

Fair Queueing Implementation  Define - - finishing time of packet k of flow i (in system virtual time reference system) - - arrival time of packet k of flow i - - length of packet k of flow i  The finishing time of packet k+1 of flow i is

“Weighted Fair Queueing” (WFQ)  What if we don't want exact fairness? -ex: file servers  Assign weight w i to each flow i  And change virtual finishing time

FQ Advantages  FQ protect well-behaved flows from ill-behaved flows  Example: 1 UDP (10 Mbps) and 31 TCP’s sharing a 10 Mbps link

Summary  FQ does not eliminate congestion  it just manages the congestion  You need both end-host congestion control and router support for congestion control -End-host congestion control to adapt -Router congestion control to protect/isolate  Don’t forget buffer management: you still need to drop in case of congestion. Which packet’s would you drop in FQ? -One possibility: packet from the longest queue