1 / 16

Network Border Patrol Celio Albuquerque, Brett J. Vickers and Tatsuya Suda

Network Border Patrol Celio Albuquerque, Brett J. Vickers and Tatsuya Suda. Jaideep Vaidya CS590F Fall 2000. Need. End to End Congestion Control / Avoidance Mechanisms not enough. Unresponsive flows Rogue TCP stacks Network level mechanisms - Necessary Evil

fordon
Télécharger la présentation

Network Border Patrol Celio Albuquerque, Brett J. Vickers and Tatsuya Suda

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. Network Border PatrolCelio Albuquerque, Brett J. Vickers and Tatsuya Suda Jaideep Vaidya CS590F Fall 2000

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Goals • Eliminate congestion collapse resulting from undelivered packets • When combined with fair queueing, achieve approximately max-min fair bandwidth allocations for competing network flows

  5. NBP Egress Router

  6. NBP Ingress Router

  7. 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)

  8. FeedBack Packets

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Results from Simulation Experiments • Preventing congestion collapse

  12. Results from Simulation Experiments • Max-min fairness

  13. 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

  14. Implementation Issues • Scalable Flow Classification • Scalable inter-domain deployment • Scalable fairness • Incremental Deployment • Multicast • Multi-path routing • Integrated or Differentiated service

  15. 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)

  16. Questions?

More Related