overqos: an overlay based architecture for enhancing internet qos
DESCRIPTION
OverQos: An Overlay based Architecture for Enhancing Internet Qos. L Subramanian*, I Stoica*, H Balakrishnan + , R Katz* *UC Berkeley, MIT + USENIX NSDI’04, 2004. Outline. Introduction OverQos Architecture Controlled-Loss Virtual Link (CLVL) OverQoS Implementation Two Sample Application - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
OverQos: An Overlay based Architecture for Enhancing Internet Qos
L Subramanian*, I Stoica*, H Balakrishnan+, R Katz**UC Berkeley, MIT+
USENIX NSDI’04, 2004
2
Outline
Introduction OverQos Architecture Controlled-Loss Virtual Link (CLVL) OverQoS Implementation Two Sample Application Evaluation Conclusions
3
Introduction
Today’s Internet still continues to provide only a best-effort service. The main reason is the requirement of these proposals that all network elements implement QoS mechanisms.
The authors propose OverQoS, an overlay based QoS architecture for enhancing Internet QoS.
4
Introduction (cont.)
Enhancements: Smoothing losses
Reduce or even eliminate the loss bursts by smoothing packet losses across time
Packet prioritization Protect important packets
Statistical Bandwidth and Loss Guarantees
5
OverQoS Architecture (1/3)
Assumptions The placement of overlay nodes is pre-specified The end-to-end path on top of an overlay network is
fixed Using existing approaches like RON to
determine the overlay path. Terms
Virtual link – The IP path between two overlay nodes Bundle – A stream of application data packets
carried across the virtual link
6
OverQoS Architecture (2/3)
Overlay-based QoS challenges Node Placement and Cross Traffic Fairness
Should not hurt the cross traffic Stability
Many virtual links overlapping on congested physical links should be able to co-exist
7
OverQoS Architecture (3/3)
A Solution builds on two principles Bundle loss control
Using controlled-loss virtual link (CLVL) to bound the loss rate
Resource management within a bundle Control the loss and bandwidth allocations
8
Bundle Loss Control
The CLVL provides a loss rate bound, q. Using a combination of FEC and ARQ The bandwidth overhead should be minimized
The total traffic consists of: The traffic of the bundle The redundancy traffic
The available bandwidth for the flows in the bundle
b(t): Traffic bound at time tr(t): Fraction of redundancy traffic
9
Resource Management within a Bundle
If the traffic arrival rate is larger than available bandwidth c, the extra traffic is dropped at the entry overlay node With priority
Statistical bandwidth guarantees , where u represents the
probability of not meeting the bandwidth guarantee As long as the total allocated bandwidth is less
than cmin
10
Overall picture
Application-OverQoS Interface It needs to tunnel its
packets through the overlay network using an OverQoS proxy
The proxy is responsible for signaling the application specific requirements to OverQoS
OverQoS proxy is application specific
11
Discussion
End-to-end Recovery vs. Overlay CLVL Using FEC to apply end-to-end loss control is far
more expensive than on an aggregate level With a better distribution of overlay nodes, they e
xpect the overlay links to have much smaller RTTs than end-to-end RTTs ARQ recovery is better in overlay-level
Delay guarantees Overlay has no control in queuing delays
Over-provisioning Overlay are the right platform for translating intra
domain QoS to end-to-end QoS guarantees
12
Controlled-Loss Virtual Link (CLVL)
Estimating b Based on an N-TCP pipe abstraction which
provides a bandwidth which is N times the throughput of a single TCP connection. Use MulTCP to emulate the behavior N is equal to the number of flows in the bundle
Node Architecture
q: target loss-ratec: available bandwidth
p: loss rateb: maximum sending rate
13
Achieving target loss rate q FEC vs. ARQ trade-off
Bandwidth overhead and packet recovery time FEC+ARQ based CLVL
Restrict # of retransmissions to at most one The expected packet loss rate
The expected bandwidth overhead
The optimal solution is when r1 = 0
Controlled-Loss Virtual Link (CLVL) (cont.)
After two rounds
Goal
Minimizes
r is the redundancy factor
OverQoS Implementation
Application-dependent proxy Choosing parameters
N as the average number of flows observed over a larger period of time q = 0.1%
Startup phase Using a slow-start phase to estimate the initial value of b
FEC implementation Operating on small window sizes (n < 1000) coding is not a bottleneck
15
Streaming Media Application
Two enhancements The quality can be enhanced by converting burst
y losses into smooth losses for streaming audio
Recovering packets preferentially can improve the quality for MPEG streaming
Not consume any additional bandwidth Retransmits an important lost packet and drops
a later lesser important packet
16
Streaming Media ApplicationEvaluation
Perceptual Evaluation of Speech Quality (PESQ)(5 is ideal)
Increase0.15 – 0.2
Average loss rate Mazu-Korea – 2% Intel-Lulea – 3%
Streaming Audio
MPEG streaming
Not only improves the quality in the average casebut also the minimum quality of a stream
17
Counterstrike Application
Problem Client unable to connect to the server Cause skips or get disconnected
Alleviate the problem of bursty losses by performing: Recover from bursty network losses by using an
FEC+ARQ based CLVL Smoothly drop data packets equivalent to the siz
e of the burst at the overlay node Identify control packets based on packet size an
d not drop these packets
18
Counterstrike Application Evaluation
Sequence number plot illustrating smoothing of packet losses using OverQoS
Smoothing losses works well only when the bursty loss-periods are relatively short by compensating
Unable to achieve the target loss-rate due to congestion periods with very high loss-rates
10% loss-rate
19
Evaluation
Methodology Wide-Area Evaluation Testbed
RON and PlanetLab – use 19 diverse nodes Simulation Environment
Ns-2 – a single congested link of 10 Mbps where they vary the background traffic Long lived TCP connections Self similar traffic Web traffic
20
Statistical Loss Guarantees
Simulations
Wide Area Evaluation Achieve target over 80 of the 83 virtual links The causes of the other 3 virtual links
Short outages – a period of time all packets are lost (< 5s) Bi-modal loss distributions – bursty losses
q = 0.1%
21
Statistical Bandwidth Guarantees
Monitor 83 unique virtual linksu = 0.01 and u = 0.005
The value of cmin is greater than 100Kbpsfor more than 80% of the links
N-TCP, N = 10
Stability of cmin
1) The value of cmin is very stable, which does not deviate more than 10% around its mean
2) Set P = 1%, the actual value is no more than 1.3%
Calculate cmin based on a history of 200 seconds
The average sending rate of N-TCP is between 120Kbps to 2Mbps
22
OverQoS Cost
Overhead Characteristics
The difference between avg. loss & FEC+ARQ is the amount of FEC used in the second round
The burstier the background traffic, the higher the amount of FEC required to recover from these losses
23
OverQoS Cost (cont.)
Delay Characteristics Two reasons for increasing delay
The recovery process Support in-sequence delivery of packets
Three different models(a)No packet ordering(b)End-to-end ordering(c) Hop-by-hop ordering
1) E2E is better than Hop-by-hop2) Adding new OverQoS nodes
increasing limited delay
24
Fairness and Stability Three OverQoS bundles (with N=2, N=4, N=8)
compete on a shared bottleneck under two different scenarios No cross-traffic Cross-traffic con
sisting of five long lived TCPs
1) Three OverQoS bundles co-exist with each other and with the background traffic
2) The ratio of throughputs of the three bundles is preserved
25
Conclusions
OverQoS can enhance Internet QoS without any support from the underlying IP network
OverQoS is able to achieve the three enhancements with little (i.e., 5%) or no extra bandwidth.
Future work Combine admission control and path selection Determine the “optimal” placement of the OverQ
oS nodes in the network