1 / 6

AF Testing Current Status and Perspectives

This presentation discusses the current status and future perspectives of Assured Forwarding (AF) services as explored at the IRISA TF-NGN meeting in Southampton on April 18, 2002. Key topics include the calibration of WRED and TCM for TCP, the testing and simulation of bandwidth distribution among UDP and TCP flows, and the challenges of large-scale AF service implementation. Insights on priority-based packet dropping under congestion, and the implications for TCP behavior are addressed. Future proposals include services for CBR sources and shaped TCP aggregates, focusing on assured bandwidth rather than bandwidth sharing.

ebony-donovan
Télécharger la présentation

AF Testing Current Status and Perspectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AF TestingCurrent Status and Perspectives Octavio Medina Julio Orozco ENSTB / IRISA TF-NGN meeting Southampton, UK 18/04/2002

  2. Current Status • What has been done: • Calibration of WRED • Calibration of TCM for TCP • What has been tested: • BW distribution among UDP flows • BW distribution among TCP aggregates • BW distribution TCP vs. UDP • What has been simulated • Individual TCP behavior • Aggregation • 2 level marking

  3. Current Status • What’s missing

  4. AF-Based Services • Until now, testing has focused in observing BW sharing among flows. • BW sharing under congestion not only depends on marking, but also on TCP behavior. • Difficult to imagine a large-scale service based on AF capacities. • AF offers priority-based packet drop in case of congestion. • Transport protocols don’t know how to take advantage of that. • A PHB for applications?

  5. Perspectives • A service proposal may be imagined for CBR sources. • UDP multimedia flows • Shaped TCP aggregates ? • Tests & simulations for the CBR specific case can be specified. • Focus on Assured Bandwidth, forget BW sharing. • Concentrate on multi-layer multimedia needs?

  6. Perspectives • Interest for an IP+ service has decreased • AF benefits are only seen under congestion. • Congestion not as frequent as before. • AF may be an alternative for LBE • Compare complexity to WRR. • Drawbacks related to delay. • Can AF improve ECN? • Any other possible use of AF?

More Related