IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva End to End Quality of Service Control in H.323 Networks End to End Quality of Service Control in H.323 Networks Mike Buckley Lucent Technologies

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Inter-relationship of QoS Factors Codec Performance Network Factors Network Delay Network Packet Loss Network Jitter Overall Delay Application Factors Overall Packet Loss Jitter Buffers Perceived Quality QoS Service Level

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Network Packet Loss, Mean Delay, Delay Variation SERVICE APPLICATION TRANSPORT QoS Service Class Codec, Frames per Packet, Frame Size, Jitter Buffer Size, Overall Delay, Overall Packet Loss, FEC (Redundancy) QoS Parameters

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva End User Domain Administrative Domains Service Domain Service Domain Service Domain Service Domain End User Domain Service Domain Transport Network

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva End User Domain Domains - Managed Networks Service Domain Service Domain Service Domain Service Domain End User Domain Service Domain Transport Domain Transport Domain Transport Domain

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Conventional Approach to Delivering QoS End-to-end

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva H.323 Signalling QoS Signalling Packet Flow Application Plane Transport Plane The End-to-end (Internet) QoS Model Service Domain 1 Transport Domain 1 Transport Domain 2 Transport Domain 3 H.225.0, H.245 UDP/IP RSVP, DiffServ

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva H.323 End-to-end QoS Support H.323 Appendix 1 Allows for: End Points to indicate ability to support RSVP prior to call set-up, synchronization of QoS capability signalling with RSVP signalling between end points at call set-up.

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Problems with this Approach BUT Transport domains may support different QoS mechanisms and policies. Who owns the end to end picture? No mechanism to select transport domain on basis of QoS levels supported. c.f choice of alternative long distance carriers. QoS messages are not signalled to the service provider - how can he control the QoS levels offered? Need a business model for supplying and charging for QoS

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Current Work - Imperatives NEED A new approach. An end to end QoS architecture. Domain by domain control. A model that allows and supports charging for QoS. H.323 signalling to support the above

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Application Controlled Approach to Delivering QoS End-to-end

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Call Signalling Packet Flow QoS Signalling Application Plane Transport Plane An Application Controlled Approach to QoS Service Domain 1 Transport Domain 1 Transport Domain 2 Transport Domain 3

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Advantages of the Application Controlled Approach to End-to-end QoS CLEAR BUSINESS MODEL  The Application Service Provider is in the driving seat. End-to-end (inter-domain) QoS control takes place within the Application Plane. (Between Service Providers)  Required end-to-end QoS levels are established within the Application Plane (Between the End User and Service Provider)  Transport Domains (Operators) provide a QoS service to the associated Service Domains (Service Providers). QoS control within a Transport Domain is the responsibility of the Operator of that domain

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Advantages of the Application Controlled Appoach to End-to-end QoS (Cont) OTHER ADVANTAGES  A common interface can be defined between a Transport Domain and its associated Service Domain even though different QoS mechanisms may be present within the Transport Plane  No QoS information need be exchanged between the End User and Network Operator or between Network Operators  Application Controlled Firewalls and NATS can be accommodated

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Call Signalling Media Flow QoS Signalling Application Plane Transport Plane Mixed Transport QoS Mechanisms Service Domain 1 Service Domain 2 Transport Domain 1 (RSVP) Transport Domain 2 (Diff Serv) Transport Domain 3 (MPLS/ATM) Transport Domain 4 (RSVP)

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva The Concept of QoS Budgets

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Mapping QoS to H.323 Signals

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Protocols Involved Application Plane Transport Plane Packet Flow QoS Signalling Transport Domain GK QoSPE Service Domain Terminal End User Domain End User Transport Domain Transport Domain GK QoSPE Service Domain H.323 H.qos

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Additions to H.323 Protocols  QoS is determined on a per media stream basis so QoS is negotiated per media stream via H.245. New fields in H.245 under development.  QoS Class may be requested by End User via H.245 or H Additions to both protocols under development to enable this.  QoS characteristics of terminals may be registered with service providers. This involves additions to H RAS. New Annex N of H.323

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva New Vertical Protocol Required (H.qos)  Used to signal QoS parameters (max delay, max jitter, max packet loss) to each domain  Typically will be between GK or Media Gateway Controller and Edge Router or Transport Resource Manager  Candidates H.248/Megaco, COPS or possibly RSVP

IP Networking & MEDIACOM 2004 Workshop April 2001 Geneva Summary  End to end signalling of RSVP support by terminals is already provided for in H.323  New domain by domain QoS approach under development along lines of TIPHON model  New H.323 Annex N will include this functionality  New protocol H.qos will be required to implement domain by domain control.