2. Mario Gerla and Gianluca Reali Computer Science Department University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) gerla@cs.ucla.edu www.cs.ucla.edu/NRL/ IP DiffServ Architecture for Providing Voice/Video QoS Guarantees: CAC, QoS Routing and Forwarding

3. Multiple constraints QoS Routing Given: - a (real time) connection request with specified QoS requirements (e.g., Bdw, Delay, Jitter, packet loss, path reliability etc) Find: - a min cost (typically min hop) path which satisfies such constraints - if no feasible path found, reject the connection

4. Example of QoS Routing A B D = 30, BW = 20 D = 25, BW = 55 D = 5, BW = 90 D = 3, BW = 105 D = 5, BW = 90 D = 1, BW = 90 D = 5, BW = 90 D = 2, BW = 90 D = 5, BW = 90 D = 14, BW = 90 Constraints: Delay (D) = 30

5. 2 Hop Path --------------> Fails (Total delay = 55 > 25 and Min. BW = 20 Succeeds!! (Total delay = 24 30) 5 Hop Path ----------> Do not consider, although (Total Delay = 16 30) A B D = 30, BW = 20 D = 25, BW = 55 D = 5, BW = 90 D = 3, BW = 105 D = 5, BW = 90 D = 1, BW = 90 D = 5, BW = 90 D = 2, BW = 90 D = 5, BW = 90 D = 14, BW = 90 Constraints: Delay (D) = 30 We look for feasible path with least number of hops

6. Benefits of QoS Routing Without QoS routing: must probe path & backtrack; non optimal path, control traffic and processing OH, latency With QoS routing: optimal route; “focused congestion” avoidance more efficient Call Admission Control (at the source) more efficient bandwidth allocation (per traffic class) resource renegotiation possible

7. The components of QoS Routing Q-OSPF: link state based protocol; it disseminates link state updates (including QoS parameters) to all nodes; it creates/maintains global topology map at each node Bellman-Ford constrained path computation algorithm: it computes constrained min hop paths to all destinations at each node based on topology map Call Acceptance Control Packet Forwarding: source route or MPLS

8. OSPF Overview 5 Message Types 1) “Hello” - lets a node know who the neighbors are 2) Link State Update - describes sender’s cost to it’s neighbors 3) Link State Ack. - acknowledges Link State Update 4) Database description - lets nodes determine who has the most recent link state information 5) Link State Request - requests link state information

9. OSPF Overview A B C D E 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 “Link State Update Flooding”

10. OSPF Overview  “Hello” message is sent every 10 seconds and only between neighboring routers  Link State Update is sent every 30 minutes or upon a change in a cost of a path  Link State Update is the only OSPF message which is acknowledged  Routers on the same LAN use “Designated Router” scheme

11. Implementation of OSPF in the QoS Simulator  Link State Update is sent every 2 seconds  No acknowledgement is generated for Link State Updates  Link State Update may include (for example): - Queue size of each outgoing queue (averaged over 10s sliding window) - Throughput on each outgoing link (averaged over 10s sliding window) - Total bandwidth (capacity of the link)  Source router can use above information to calculate - end-to-end delay - available buffer size - available bandwidth

12. Bellman-Ford Algorithm 1 10 1242 32 1 24 35 Bellman Equation : j D i h+1 D h =min[d(i,j) +] 1 3 1 24 35 D 1 1 =0 D 2 1 =1 D 3 1 =3 D 4 1 =00 D 5 1 one hop 1 3 1 24 35 D 1 2 =0 D 2 2 =1 D 3 2 =2 D 4 2 =11 D 5 2 =5 10 1 2 two hops i D h h D h* three hops 1 1 24 35 D 1 3 =0 D 2 3 =1 D 3 3 =2 D 4 3 =7 D 5 3 =4 1 2 2 3

13. B/F Algorithm properties B/F slightly less efficient than Dijkstra ( O(N  ) instead of O (NlgN) ) However, B/F generates solutions by increasing hop distance; thus, the first found feasible solution is “hop” optimal (ie, min hop) polynomial performance for most common sets of multiple constraints (e.g., bandwidth and delay )

14. CAC and packet forwarding CAC: if feasible path not found, call is rejected; alternatively, source is notified of constraint violation, and can resubmit with relaxed constraint (call renegotiation) Packet forwarding: (a) source routing (per flow), and (b) MPLS (per class)

15. Application I: IP Telephony CAC at source; no bandwidth reservation along path 36 node, highly connected network Trunk capacity = 15Mbps Voice calls generated at fixed intervals Non uniform traffic requirement Two routing strategies are compared: Minhop routing (no CAC) QoS routing Simulation platform: PARSEC wired network simulation

16. QoS simulator: priority queues PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 SIGNALLING (OSPF) QoS Sources (Voice) Non-QoS Sources (TCP) RESERVED

17. QoS Simulator: buffer allocations CBQ 1 MB

18. QoS Simulator: Voice Source Modeling TALKSILENCE  1/ = 352 ms 1/  = 650 ms 1 voice packet every 20ms during talk state

19. 0 12 18 54213 6 30 24 14 87 131716 1011 15 9 19 2627 34 28 22 20 2123 33 35 29 25 3132 50 Km 15 Mbit/sec

20. Simulation Parameters  10 Minute Simulation Runs  Each voice connection lasts of 3 minutes  OSPF updates are generated every 2 seconds (30 minute OSPF update interval in Minhop scheme)  New voice connections generated with fixed interarrival  Measurements are in STEADY-STATE (after 3 minutes)  100 msec delay threshold 3Mbit/sec bandwidth margin on each trunk  NON-UNIFORM TRAFFIC GENERATION

21. Light Load Experiment Voice Call interarrival T = 375ms; No TCP traffic MC Bellman Ford Minhop #calls generated: 1120 1120 #calls accepted: 1120 1120 % packet lost: 0% 0% % packet above Delay Thresh: 0% 0% % packet below Delay Thresh: 100% 100% DELAY THRESHOLD = 100ms

22. MC Bellman Ford Minhop #calls generated: 2800 2800 #calls accepted: 2800 2800 % packet lost: 0.0% 22.61% % packet above Delay Thresh: 0.0% 48.83% % packet below Delay Thresh: 100.0% 28.56% DELAY THRESHOLD = 100ms Heavy Load Experiment Voice Call interarrival T = 150ms; No TCP traffic

23. 0 12 18 54213 6 30 24 14 87 131716 1011 15 9 19 2627 34 28 22 20 2123 33 35 29 25 3132 50 Km 15 Mbit/sec MINHOP ROUTING

24. 0 12 18 54213 6 30 24 14 87 131716 1011 15 9 19 2627 34 28 22 20 2123 33 35 29 25 3132 50 Km 15 Mbit/sec MINHOP ROUTING

25. 0 12 18 54213 6 30 24 14 87 131716 1011 15 9 19 2627 34 28 22 20 2123 33 35 29 25 3132 50 Km 15 Mbit/sec QoS ROUTING

26. 0 12 18 54213 6 30 24 14 87 131716 1011 15 9 19 2627 34 28 22 20 2123 33 35 29 25 3132 50 Km 15 Mbit/sec QoS ROUTING

27. - TCP source/destination pairs same as for voice - FTP infinite backlog - TCP Reno Heavy Load Experiment with TCP Voice Call interarrival T = 150ms TCP steady state performance with QoS Routing

30. OSPF packet size was 350 bytes OSPF (LSA) updates were generated every 2 seconds Measurements were performed on a “perfect square grid” topology

31. 75ms voice call generation rate

32. Application II: MPEG video Measurement based CAC (which worked well for IP telephony) is now replaced by reservation based CAC RSVP type signaling required Effective bandwidth & buffer reservations 36 node grid-type topology Trunk capacity = 5.5 Mbps Inputs = Measured MPEG traces QoS guarantees: no-loss; delay < Tmax Simulation platform: PARSEC wired network simulation

33. EDGE ROUTER MPEG SOURCES NETWORK ACCESS SECTION

34. DLB 1 DUAL LEAKY-BUCKET REGULATOR rsrs PsPs DLB 2 B TS b c PsPs rsrs c0c0 b0b0 LOSSLESS ALLOCATION SCHEDULING Token buffer Sustainable rate Peak rate Input rate Output rate

35. NETWORK CORE SECTION Each router keeps a resource bookkeeping table: OUGOING LINK; AB;AC ;NS 1,NS 2,...NS n ; AB: Available Buffers; AC: Available Capacity NS k, k=1,…,n: the number additional flows belonging to class S k that the router can accept within QoS constraints Each router loads the AB, AC and NS information in the OSPF Link State Update packet. Link State Parameters updated at each reservation

36. APPLICATION ORDER SOURCE NODEDESTINATION NODE PATHCAC Y/N REJECTI ON NODE 10351 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 35Y 2241325 19 20 14 13Y 3192025 31 32 26 20Y 4118 Y 5343528 29 35Y 6 1821 19 20 21N19 1 7 8 14 20 21Y 72935 NO PATH FOUND 89188 7 1 18N1 8 14 20 19 18Y 9272126 20 21N20 26 20 14 8 9 15 21Y 102228 Y 11222821 20 19 25 24 34 28Y SIMULATION RESULTS Bandwidth/link: 5.5 Mbps unidirectional Tmax: 0.1 s Effective bandwidth: 2.6 Mbps Effective buffer: 260 KB (no buffer saturation)

37. 0 12 18 54213 6 30 24 14 87 131716 1011 15 9 19 2627 34 28 22 20 2123 33 35 29 25 3132 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 11

38. 0 12 18 54213 6 30 24 14 87 131716 1011 15 9 19 2627 34 28 22 20 2123 33 35 29 25 3132 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 11

39. SIMULATION RESULTS no reservations; measurement based CAC Bandwidth/link: 5.5 Mbps unidirectional Tmax: 0.1 s

40. Video Only Result Comparisons Class based QoS routing with reservation vs. Measurement based QoS routing without reservation Bandwidth/link: 5.5 Mbps unidirectional Tmax: 0.1 s, Duration 10 min

41. Effects of Reservation Algorithms on TCP Scenario: 5 ftp (TCP) applications run between Node 0 (server) and Node 35(client) over 1 min period. Case 1: TCP only Case 2: TCP & video using class based algorithms with reservation Case 3: TCP & video using measurement based algorithms w/o reservation

42. Effects of Reservation Algorithms on TCP Continued

43. Conclusions QoS routing beneficial for CAC, enhanced routing, resource allocation and resource renegotiation Can efficiently handle flow aggregation (Diff Serv) Q-OSPF traffic overhead manageable up to hundreds of nodes Can be scaled to thousands of nodes using hierarchical OSPF Major improvements observed in handling of IP telephony and MPEG video MPEG video best served via reservations

44. Future Work Use of MPLS instead of source routing extension to hierarchical OSPF extension to Interdomain Routing extension to multiple classes of traffic Statistical allocation of MPEG sources

47. 75ms voice call generation rate