QoS Service Level Agreement (SLA)for Tactical/Deployed Scenario

Deborah GoldsmithDeborah GoldsmithMITRE Corporation MITRE Corporation

(619)758-7829(619)758-7829deborah@mitre.orgdeborah@mitre.org

2

Outline

• Problem Statement• General Requirements • Scenario Description• Tactical /Deployed SLA• Data Classification and Marking• Issues• Questions

3

Problem Statement

• Meet QoS Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) for the Tactical/Deployed platform across the End-to-End Circuit

4

General Requirements*

• Applications will converge to a common infrastructure (most likely Layer 3 IP)– Voice– Video– Datagram– Control/Management

• Applications MUST work end-to-end across wide diversity of LANs, MANs, WANs

• System MUST allow user to indicate mission-based priority and support priority handling to resolve end-to-end bottlenecks

• System MUST meet stringent IA requirements

* DISA, 5-29-02

5

Scenario Description:The End-to-End Circuit*

FIXED TACTICAL

CAMP/POST/STATION WIDE AREA NETWORK TACTICAL/DEPLOYED

END-TO-END DISN

• Solution must apply to ALL elements of the Defense Information Systems Network (C/P/S, WAN, TACTICAL)– F-F, F-T, T-T

• Multiple domains– Traffic in the WAN traverses many network domains that may be

considered analogous to external carrier networks with their own QoS/SLA’s

* DISA, 5-29-02

6

Scenario Description:The Tactical/Deployed Segment• Tactical \deployed communications use multiple RF gateways• RF gateways represent bottlenecks due to bandwidth constraints

Point-to-Point Link

Ship 3)

Ship 1

Land Base 1

LOS LINK

Aircraft 1

LOSIP Net 2

LOSIP Net 1 LOS

IP Net 3

Ship 5

Vehicle 1

Foot Soldier

Ship 2

Ship 4

Land Base 1

Land Base 2

Land Base 1

Land Base 1

Land Base 1

Vehicle 1

Aircraft 2

7

Scenario Description:The Tactical Platform & the RF Gateway

enclave

enclave

enclave

VPN

VPN

WANGW

WANGW

LAN

LAN

LAN

RFGW

LOSSLASLA

8

Tactical/Deployed SLA

• Minimum bandwidth guarantees for specified data types or sources

• B/W, latency, jitter guarantees for VoIP and packet VTC• Latency guarantees for tactical messages• No starvation for Best Effort (BE) (aggregate)

9

Data Classification and Marking

10

Application Flow Categories*

QoS Application Flow Type Application Example Flow

Continuous/Interactive Voice over IP, VTC TCP Setup and UDP Flow

Streaming Video Imagery,

Multicasting

TCP Setup and UDP Flow

Block Transfer Telnet, http TCP Flow

Batch Transfer E-mail, ftp TCP Flow

Transactional Client / Server, e-commerce TCP Flow

Other SNMP, RIP, OSFP, BGP, TFTP, DHCP, ICMP

Non-TCP

Each category has QoS Performance Metrics

* DISA, 5-29-02

11

Marking RFC’s

12

Sample DSCP Marking by Application Categories

• Marking by priority and latency requirements

Mapping of Applications DSCP # AF ClassAll SMTP, best-effort (hrs.) 0 BE(min.) FTP 14 AF13(min.) DB repl. 12 AF12(sec.) HTTP/HTTPS, DNS 10 AF11(sec.) Telnet/Chat 22 AF23(msec) Tactical App Low Priority 20 AF22(msec) Tactical App Hi Priority 18 AF21Future Tactical Apps 24-31 AF31- AF33Video, all UDP 34 AF41Reserved Apps (poss. future) 34 AF41VOIP Control 41VOIP 46 EF

13

Issues

• Mobility

• Ad-hoc Networks

• Link outage and degradation

14

Questions

– Can DiffServ (DSCP’s) be the basis of a near-term implementation plan to implement end-to-end QoS for the tactical/deployed scenario?

• Bandwidth Reservation for some applications• B/W, Latency and Jitter guarantees for VOIP, VTC• Latency guarantees for tactical messages• Priority and precedence• No starvation for Best effort

– What are the end-to-end QoS mechanisms to implement a long-term implementation plan?

• Dynamic QoS based on policy• Admission control• QoS-aware applications signaling the network• Reroute with QoS on link failure /degradation• Mobility• Performance monitoring and control

Yes No