network border patrol celio albuquerque, brett j. vickers and tatsuya suda jaideep vaidya cs590f...
TRANSCRIPT
Network Border PatrolCelio Albuquerque, Brett J. Vickers and Tatsuya
Suda
Jaideep VaidyaCS590F Fall 2000
Need• End to End Congestion Control /
Avoidance Mechanisms not enough.• Unresponsive flows• Rogue TCP stacks
• Network level mechanisms - Necessary Evil
• Try to push as much to the border of the network as possible
Essential Idea• Core Stateless Congestion Avoidance
Mechanism
• Exchange of feedback between Edge Routers
• Per-flow rate monitoring at Egress Routers
• Per-flow rate control at Ingress Routers
Goals• Eliminate congestion collapse resulting
from undelivered packets
• When combined with fair queueing, achieve approximately max-min fair bandwidth allocations for competing network flows
NBP Egress Router
NBP Ingress Router
Feedback Control Algorithm
• Decides how and when feedback packets are exchanged between edge routers.
• Necessary for discovering source, communicate per-flow bit rates & detect network congestion by estimating RTT
• BFFs can be generated asynchronously. (RTT cannot be calculated in this case)
FeedBack Packets
Rate Control Algorithm• Regulates rate at which each flow
enters the network. Converge on set of per-flow transmission rates, preventing congestion collapse. Maximize link utilization.
• Similar to TCP congestion control (Slow start and Congestion avoidance phases)
• Handles synchronous and asynchronous packets differently
Rate Control Algorithm contd.
• Activated on receipt of feedback packet.• Synchronous feedback
• Update baseRTT• Calculate mrc (minimum rate change)• Change rate based on phase
• Aysnchronous feedback• Use old mrc and modify rate based on
current phase
Results from Simulation Experiments
• Preventing congestion collapse
Results from Simulation Experiments
• Max-min fairness
Fairness Results• NBP by itself is not able to provide
fairness.• With WFQ or CSFQ, NBP provides
approximate fairness, and avoids congestion collapse
• Results with WFQ are better than results with CSFQ.
• CSFQ’s fairness mechanism engages only when congestion is detected
• CSFQ is an approximation of WFQ
Implementation Issues• Scalable Flow Classification• Scalable inter-domain deployment• Scalable fairness• Incremental Deployment• Multicast• Multi-path routing• Integrated or Differentiated service
Conclusion• Pros
• Good paper. Limitations noted.• Stop gap solution. Adequate for goals noted.
• Cons• Incremental deployment not easy.• Deployment based on whether we expect
QoS technology to be available soon.• Overload is directly proportional to number
of flows. Would not work well with HTTP 1.0 (more number of flows)
Questions?