1. Rev PA110.12.20041 Signaled Provisioning of the IP Network Resources Between the Media Gateways in Mobile Networks Leena Siivola 10.12.2004

2. Rev PA110.12.20042 Problem Description For circuit switched (CS) traffic the delay and the jitter requirements are strict. That is why the amount of voice calls must be controlled not only from radio networks (RN) side but also from IP multiservice backbone’s point of view. The backbone edge nodes, i.e. the Media Gateway, must have ways to control the amount of traffic injected to the network –This must make it possible to give some QoS guarantees for the voice calls –The network resources will be used more efficiently

3. Rev PA110.12.20043 Objectives and Scope The objective of this Thesis is to –describe the current Call Admission Control (CAC) mechanisms in the 3G IP multiservice backbone –to evaluate the suitability of the NSIS signaling protocol framework for the CAC solution.

4. Rev PA110.12.20044 The functional architecture of the 3G network

5. Rev PA110.12.20045 The Call Admission Control Mechanism

6. Rev PA110.12.20046 Provisioning Methods in the IP Multiservice Backbone.. MBAC = Measurement Based Admission Control MPLS = Multiprotocol Label Switching

7. Rev PA110.12.20047 Static Provisioning Methods in the Media Gateway

8. Rev PA110.12.20048 Signaled Provisioning Signaled provisioning is a tempting approach for CAC because it can give ’hard’ QoS guarantees for traffic flows and it can increase the network utilization. Many QoS signaling protocols exist: Tenet & ST-II RSVP with its extensions YESSIR (Yet another Sender Session Internet Reservations) Boomerang RSVP has been the most famous one Has said to bee too complex and suffering scalability problems -> also other simulation results exist! The work with the NSIS signaling protocol framework was started, because there was a need for a more lightweight signaling protocol.

9. Rev PA110.12.20049 The NSIS Signaling Framework NSLP = NSIS Signaling Application Level NTLP = NSIS Transport Level

10. Rev PA110.12.200410 The NSIS Signaling for Quality of Service (QoS) The NSIS QoS signaling framework is based on a two layered architecture: NTLP (NSIS Transport Layer Protocol) NSLP (NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol) QoS Model that is being signalled (e.g. Intserv or RMD) NSIS without QoS Model is only a framework with many optional features.

11. Rev PA110.12.200411 Comparison Between the NSIS QoS Signaling and RSVP NSIS can be both sender- and receiver-oriented NSIS does not support multicast Mobility support Bi-directional reservation possible

12. Rev PA110.12.200412 NSIS(RMD) Architecture It is not possible to evaluate the NSIS signaling without taking the QoS model into account. The NSIS framework consists of several optional features that can be taken into use. Resource Management in Diffserv (RMD) implemented with NSIS

13. Rev PA110.12.200413 Successful Reservation Initiator ReceiverEdge Interior Resv(QSpec) Resv(E2E ignore, QSpec) Resv(QSpec) Resv(LQSpec) Response

14. Rev PA110.12.200414 One Possible Implementation of NSIS to the 3G

15. Rev PA110.12.200415 Evaluation + NSIS framework is flexible and modular -> it can be used in different ways + There are several optional features that can be taken into use -The resulting QoS protocol is even more complex than RSVP -> what do we gain with the abstraction level?

16. Rev PA110.12.200416 Evaluation: The NSIS(RMD) Implementation as an Example Evaluation criteriors: –Per-hop Performance Metrics Signaling message processing delay –Per-Reservation Performance Metrics Signaling Bandwidth Overhead Abortive Provisioning Blocking Probability Reservation Setup Time –Applicability of the NSIS(RMD) Signaling to the IP Multiservice Backbone SCALABILITY AND ROBUSTNESS

17. Rev PA110.12.200417 Per-hop Performance Metrics: Signaling message processing delay t s = signaling message processing delay t S0 = the base parameter f R = a component dependent of the session load (L R ) f T = a component dependent of the session (L R ) and the signaling load (L T ) Signaling message processing delay In the edge routers: proportional to the number of sessions In the core routers: a constant

18. Rev PA110.12.200418 Per-Reservation Performance Metrics: Signaling Bandwidth Overhead

19. Rev PA110.12.200419 Per-Reservation Performance Metrics: Abortive Provisioning

20. Rev PA110.12.200420 Per-Reservation Performance Metrics: Blocking Probability

21. Rev PA110.12.200421 Per-Reservation Performance Metrics: Reservation Setup Time

22. Rev PA110.12.200422 Conclusions The Intserv type (RSVP-like) per-flow end-to-end signaling brings nothing new when comparing to RSVP The message processing times have been estimated to be approximately same (1 ms) In the IP multiservice backbones some Intserv over DiffServ approach, such as RMD, could be the solution The message processing time in the core routers is approximately 5 microsec. The system bottleneck is the signaling load on the edge routers There’s only approximately 0,9 msec time to process one reservation message in the edge router The link utilization is the same than with per-flow reservations The response time is lower because of the sender-oriented approach

23. Rev PA110.12.200423 Conclusions (continued) NSIS in itself has failed to meet its design criteria : It is not simple and ligthweight -> It is too modular There is a serious risk that NSIS will become only one signaling protocol amoung others Too much politics involved in the protocol design work The router vendors are not actively participating the work -> the possibility to implement NSIS in networks is dependent of the router implementation

24. Rev PA110.12.200424 Future research Router vendors’ interests NSIS(RMD) / RSVP(RMD) with MPLS-tunnels DCCP -> the adjustment of voice codecs with network congestion, ECN marking

25. Rev PA110.12.200425 THANK YOU! Any questions?

26. Rev PA110.12.200426 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

27. Rev PA110.12.200427 Dynamic Provisioning Methods in the Media GatewayProvisioning Methods Measurement Based Admission Control (MBAC) + CAC is fast + no extra signaling load + implementation costs low - cannot guarantee anything - the measurement result arrives always too late Probing + no actual traffic will be lost - additional traffic -> the probe packets can overload the network - Setup delay - the routers do not support ? Bandwidth Broker (BB) + high utilization - complex new node in the network

28. Rev PA110.12.200428 RSVP vs. RMD Performance RSVPNSIS (RMD) Response time (bi-directional) 1 – 1.5 RTT0.5 – 1 RTT Processing time< 1 msEdge: < 1ms Int.: < 5  s Link utilization~100% Scalabilitylimitedyes Cost High processing capacity is required in each nodes Edge nodes: same as for RSVP Int. nodes: simple functionality Source: A. Bader et al.:Presentation in the 11th International Telecommunications Network Strategy and Planning Symposium (Networks2004)