1 / 24

CATNIP – Context Aware Transport/Network Internet Protocol

Good design providing a unifying framework, compromising performance. Bad design compromising network link and physical aspects. CATNIP aims to make TCP/IP protocols "smarter" by conveying application-layer context information to improve performance.

galey
Télécharger la présentation

CATNIP – Context Aware Transport/Network Internet Protocol

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. CATNIP – Context Aware Transport/Network Internet Protocol Carey Williamson Qian Wu Department of Computer Science University of Calgary

  2. vs. Good design Bad design Application Transport Good: providing a unifying framework Bad: compromise performance Network Link Physical Why CATNIP • Layered protocol stacks

  3. Why CATNIP (Cont’d) • Observations in Web data transfer using TCP/IP • Poor protocol interactions; • TCP’s window-based flow control mechanism produces data bursts; • Not all packet losses are created equal. Packet losses are costly for small document transfer; • A TCP source has limited control over packet loss effects; • An IP router has significant control over packet loss effects.

  4. Document Size Packet Priority Design of CATNIP • Can we make the TCP/IP protocols “smarter” about the specific job? • Convey application-layer context information to the TCP and IP layers Application Transport Network

  5. Design of CATNIP (Cont’d) • Adding context-awareness to TCP: • Rate-Based Pacing of the Last Window (RBPLW) • Early Congestion Avoidance (ECA) • Selective Packet Marking (SPM): Use the reserved high-order bit in the TCP header to convey packet priority information

  6. Design of CATNIP (Cont’d) • Adding context-awareness to IP: • CATNIP-Good • CATNIP-Bad • CATNIP-RED: RED + CATNIP-Good

  7. Evaluation of CATNIP Simulation: ns-2 Evaluation Emulation: use WAN emulation to test a prototype implementation of CATNIP in the Linux kernel of an Apache Web server.

  8. Evaluation using simulation • Network model: Client 1 Server 1 10 Mbps, 5 ms 10 Mbps, 5 ms Client 2 1.5 Mbps, 5 ms Server 2 RouterS RouterC Client 99 10 Mbps, 5 ms 10 Mbps, 5 ms Client 100 Server 10

  9. Evaluation using simulation (Cont’d) • Web workload model: • 10 Web pages • Use empirically-observed distribution to determine the size, and the number of embedded images

  10. Evaluation using simulation (Cont’d) • Factors and Levels: • Performance metrics: • the transfer time for each Web page • the average packet loss

  11. ECA Reno/ RBPLW ECA/RBPLW Reno • Simulation results • DropTail routers: • Mean and standard deviation of transfer times

  12. Packet loss: • Observations: • TCP endpoint control algorithms have little advantage to offer.

  13. Reno/SPM/RBPLW/Good ECA/SPM/Good ECA/SPM/RBPLW/Good Reno/SPM/Good Reno/DropTail • Simulation results (Cont’d) • CATNIP-Good routers: • Mean and standard deviation of transfer times

  14. Packet loss: • Observations: • Adding context-awareness at the IP routers improves the mean Web page transfer times and the standard deviation of the transfer times. • The average packet loss rates with CATNIP-Good are higher than for the DropTail routers.

  15. Reno/SPM/Bad ECA/SPM/Bad Reno/DropTail • Simulation results (Cont’d) • CATNIP-Bad routers: • Mean and standard deviation of transfer times

  16. Packet loss: • Observations: • Packet losses are shifted to the high priority TCP packets, that is, throw away the “wrong packet” at the “wrong time”, therefor makes matters worse.

  17. Reno/SPM/CATNIP-RED Reno/RED ECA/SPM/CATNIP-RED ECA/RED Reno/DropTail • Simulation results (Cont’d) • CATNIP-RED routers: • Mean and standard deviation of transfer times

  18. Observations: • Reno and ECA perform similarly in almost all cases. • The effect of CATNIP-RED is greater than the effect of ECA.

  19. Experimental Implementation and Evaluation • Experimental environment: • WAN emulator: IP-TNE (Internet Protocol Traffic and Network Emulator) • Web server: Apache Web server (version 1.3.19-5) runs on top of modified Linux 2.4.16 kernel. • Implementation focused on the SPM feature only

  20. Network model Client 1 10 Mbps, 5 ms Client 2 10 Mbps, 5 ms 1.5 Mbps, 5 ms RouterS RouterC Server Endpoint Client 99 10 Mbps, 5 ms Client 100 WAN Emulation • Primary Factor: • buffer size of the bottleneck link (64 KB -- 512 KB)

  21. Evaluation results:

  22. Conclusions • Not all packet losses are created equal; • A TCP source alone has limited control over Web data transfer performance, even with application-layer information; • The IP layer has a significant influence on Web data transfer performance, particularly when application-layer context information is available; • A simple change to the TCP/IP stack implementation can provide the context information; • Changes to the queue management at routers can provide significant performance advantages for the context-aware TCP/IP.

  23. Questions?

More Related