8 June 2005 TNC2005

JANET QoS Development JANET QoS Development Project: Project:

IP Premium and LBE Trials across IP Premium and LBE Trials across JANETJANET

Victor OliferUKERNANetwork Development Project Manager

8 June 2005 TNC2005

AgendaAgenda

• JANET QoS Project history• Test plan• Test results• Phase 1 recommendations• Phase 2 objectives and structure• QoS models to be explored

8 June 2005 TNC2005

QoS on JANETQoS on JANET

• Increasing volume of traffic leads to an increased probability of congestion– This could impact real-time services such as

VoIP, Videoconferencing and Content Delivery over JANET• The JANET QoS Development Project was

established to address these challenges

• JANET is a multi-domain, hierarchical network– Backbone (SuperJANET)– Regional Networks (RBCs, RNOs) – Site Networks (LEAs, Universities, Colleges, Schools etc)

8 June 2005 TNC2005

JANET QoS JANET QoS Development ProjectDevelopment Project

• Work in the QoS area commenced in 2001, with the formation of the QoS Think Tank– QoS Think Tank Report produced (stress on

DiffServ)• JANET QoS Development Project

commenced in 2002– Define the prototype framework and QoS

services– Call for project partners– Configure backbone and partner networks with

QoS (2003)– Conduct testing on the production network

with real applications (the first half of 2004)

8 June 2005 TNC2005

UKERNA dev.net

Manchester

Lancaster

Imperial

Soton

Swansea

LBE(Elastic bulky GRID)

Partners and QoS classesPartners and QoS classes

IP Premium(VC, VoIP)

All ingress interfaces of BARs have 5% limit for IP Premium

(DSCP 46)

SSDN

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Test HighlightsTest Highlights

• Aim of testing– To compare the behaviour of applications

when they are served as BE and non-BE (Premium or LBE)

• Comparison criteria– Subjective (observed quality of VC and VoIP

sessions during periods of congestion) – Objective (RTT, jitter and loss measured by

the monitoring infrastructure deployed)

8 June 2005 TNC2005

UKERNAUKERNA

ManchesterManchester

SwanseaSwansea

LancasterLancaster

Imperial College

Imperial College

SouthamptonSouthampton

Application / Site Edge Router Applicatio

n / Site Edge Router

Application / Site Edge Router

Application / Site Edge Router

Application / Site Edge Router

Collection Agent

SAA-responder

SQLDatabase

KeyProbes and responses between SAA probes and responders

Results from SAA probes going to SQL database

Application / Site Edge Router

Reading

SAA-probe

SAA-responder

SAA probe/responder

SAA-responder

SAA probe/responder

SAA probe/responder

Monitoring Monitoring infrastructureinfrastructure

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Router under test

1 2ABC

3DEF

4 5JKL

6MNOGHI

7 8TUV

9WXYZPQRS

* 0OPER

#

7940CISCO IP PHONE

imessages directories

settingsservices

1 2ABC

3DEF

4 5JKL

6MNOGHI

7 8TUV

9WXYZPQRS

* 0OPER

#

7940CISCO IP PHONE

imessages directories

settingsservices

Application-generator

Application-receiver

SAA-responder

SAA-probe (measures reflected traffic)

IPERF-client IPERF-server

Load2Load1

Load-destination

Hub/switch/router

Hub/switch/router

Database

QoS MIB objects

(every 1 min)

An example of a test An example of a test scheme scheme

Interface to be congested

23455

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Test ResultsTest Results

• In most cases both VC and VoIP traffic benefited from IP Premium service

• LBE unicast traffic received allocated percent of bandwidth during BE bursts

• Observed peculiarities:– POS OC3 interfaces of Cisco 6500: Premium traffic

had increased delays and loss during BE congestion – LBE + BE multicast traffic (Access GRID) behaviour

was unpredictable – LBE behaved like something better than BE, audio and video sessions failed

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Preliminary trial of RUDE without VC session

VC is served as BE, VoIP as EF, VC got frozen

VC is served as EF, VoIP as EF, no degradation of both.

IP Premium UKERNA – Manchester test, 16th March 2004

8 June 2005 TNC2005

LBE Southampton – Imperial test, 9th March 2004

BE traffic

LBE traffic

8 June 2005 TNC2005

50%

Averagetransmission delay

Utilisation

100%

Very bursty traffic

Almost regular traffic

Fixed delay(signal propagation etc)

Explored window of Explored window of QoS benefitsQoS benefits

Voice & video tolerance

Overpovisioned

area

10%-20% 80%-90%

8 June 2005 TNC2005

JANET QoS Development Project Phase 2

• Recommendations of Phase 1 participants:– QoS benefits were noticeable, it works!– Establish Phase 2– Define production QoS Service Model for JANET– Conduct large scale piloting activities

• Some technical areas need to be further investigated

• Guidance documentation requirements• We should keep pace with GEANT2

8 June 2005 TNC2005

JANET QoS Development Project Phase 2 (2005- 2007)

QoS Architecture Group

Interworkingwith other

technologies:IPv6, Multicast,

Firewalls

LowBandwidth

Connections:new partnersamong FE

Policy &

Management

Monitoring and

Management

Applicationsrequirements

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Types of DiffServ models, Types of DiffServ models, to be explored in Phase 2to be explored in Phase 2

Factors:– Destination awareness

– Static vs. dynamic reservations

– Trust relationships between domains

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Static destination-unaware Static destination-unaware DifferServ model DifferServ model

Domain B(Regional

Network)

SL

A

A-B

SL

A

B-A

Domain A(Campus

Network)

Domain J(SuperJANET,

National Backbone

Network)

Domain F(Campus

Network)

Domain C(Campus

network)

ISP Domain G(GEANT,

Pan-European Backbone

Network)

Domain E(Regional

Network)

SLA

B-J SLA J-

B

User A1

User C1

User F1

R1

R2

- Only edge routers of domain do admission control and traffic policing:

to protect domain form excess of privileged traffic

- Neighbouring domains conclude SLA to process traffic classes in similar manner

and according common marking, so called DSCP values (e.g. 46 for Premium)

No reservation for flows!Each domain is responsible for

proper processing of QoS classes (aggregates)

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Pros and cons of static destination-Pros and cons of static destination-unaware DiffServ modelunaware DiffServ model

• Scalability – excellent! • Flexibility – excellent!• Maintainability - excellent!• Guarantees – poor

– Clash of flows in some output interface is allowed (flows’ routes are not under control)

– Reasonable hierarchical design of a network decreases the clash probability

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Applications of static DiffServ modelApplications of static DiffServ model

• A few well-known sources of IP Premium traffic (e.g. VC studios) which are allowed to communicate only with each other

• Restriction of a number of egress flows from origin domain at application level: – E.g. by VoIP gatekeepers

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Dynamic destination-aware DiffServ with Bandwidth Brokering

-Admission control-- Traffic policing

Domain B(Regional

Network)

BA-ADomain A

(Campus Network)

-Admission control-- Traffic policing

Domain J(SuperJANET,

National Backbone

Network)

Domain F(Campus Network)

Domain C(Campus network)

ISP Domain G(GEANT,

Pan-European Backbone

Network)

Domain E(Regional

Network)

SLA B-

J SLA J-

B

BA-E

BA-G

BA-B

BA-J

BA-C

R2

1. Check of total throughput

2. Configure admission control to pass a flow

-Admission control-- Traffic policing

•Relieve routers from counting and storing state information

•Bandwidth Brokers (BBs) do this job for routers

•Hybrid of IntServ and pure DiffServ

•Very new – GEANT2 is going to deploy it in next 4 years

•Needs re-configuring of policers for every flow – not scalable for high-level domains

8 June 2005 TNC2005

The same + trust relationships between domains

Domain B(Regional

Network)

BA-ADomain A

(Campus Network)

- Admission control- Traffic policing

Domain J(SuperJANET,

National Backbone

Network)

Domain F(Campus Network)

Domain C(Campus network)

ISP Domain G(GEANT,

Pan-European Backbone

Network)

Domain E(Regional

Network)

BA-E

BA-G

BA-B

BA-J

BA-C

trust

trust

•Reconfiguring of policers and admission control tools happen only in origin domain – good scalability

•Additional risk of misconfiguring devices within low-level domains

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Applications of dynamic Applications of dynamic destination-aware DiffServ destination-aware DiffServ modelmodel

• Effective for long-lived flows, e.g. VC

• Non-effective for short-lived flows, e.g. VoIP conversations

8 June 2005 TNC2005

A combination of static and dynamic A combination of static and dynamic DiffServ models is possible…DiffServ models is possible…

• However it needs different DSCP for marking static and dynamic flows

8 June 2005 TNC2005

Any questions?

Further Information:

JANET QoS Development www.ja.net/development/qos

Project Manager: Victor Olifer, v.olifer@ukerna.ac.uk