Upload
dian
View
33
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Shumon Huque University of Pennsylvania MAGPI GigaPoP April 15th 2002 - NSF/ITR Scalable QoS Workshop. Some QoS Deployment Issues. University of Pennsylvania network. Large research university in Philadelphia, PA 22,000 students, 4,000 faculty, 10,000 staff 48,000 registered IP addresses - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Some QoS Deployment Issues
Shumon HuqueUniversity of PennsylvaniaMAGPI GigaPoP
April 15th 2002 - NSF/ITR Scalable QoS Workshop
2
University of Pennsylvania network
Large research university in Philadelphia, PA 22,000 students, 4,000 faculty, 10,000 staff
48,000 registered IP addresses200 switched subnetsCentral routing between them and out to Internet and Internet2
3
MAGPI GigaPoP
An Internet2 GigaPoPValue added services Commodity Internet transit Facilitator of regional edu/research initiatives
Subscribers UPENN, Lehigh U, Princeton U, PA county school
units, J&J Pharmaceuticals
4
MAGPI GigaPoP (cont)
External Connectivity Internet2
OC-12c POS to Abilene Commodity Internet
UUNET: OC-3 Cogent: Gigabit Ethernet Yipes: Gigabit Ethernet (rate limited) DCANet: Fast Ethernet
5
Who wants QoS?
University researchers QoS researchers in CS department Research applications needing strict guarantees
on latency, b/w, jitter etcNetworking staff (Univ and gigaPoP) Manage exploding b/w needs Enable new classes of applications
Eg. VoIP, video conferencing, streaming Run non-mission critical traffic at lower priority
Eg. File sharing apps, dorm traffic, bulk transfers
6
What types of QoS?
DiffServ in routing core and gigaPoPLayer2 priority (802.1p) in the switched portions of the campus networkMapping L3 QoS to/from L2 QoSSignalling and admission control? RSVP intra-domain? Aggregate reservations &
map to Diffserv traffic class at edge? Bandwidth Broker signalling?
7
DiffServ
Types of forwarding behavior we are most interested in: EF (Expedited Forwarding) BE (Best Effort - default PHB) LBE/Scavenger (eg. QBSS) ABE - low delay form
8
Interdomain Internet QoS
Not very optimisticSome ISPs are starting to offer servicesMultiplicity of providers Need for them to run interoperable QoS
implementations Mechanisms to ask for QoS reservations across
administrative domains Peering/SLA issues
9
Interdomain Internet2 QoS
More optimisticTypically one or a few QoS enabled I2 backbone networks (eg. Abilene)Agreed upon QoS architectureCommon set of operational practices and proceduresSome provisioning procedures in placeExisting demand from researchers
10
Deployment Challenges
I2 backbone is an R&E network, but ..Universities are using it to transport production traffic between themAnd not just traffic associated with meritorious research applications (one of the original ideas)GigaPoP is a production network providing access to I2 and Commodity Internet
11
Deployment Challenges (2)
So, we need to be very careful about changes we introduce to the network to facilitate QoSDon’t jeopardize existing production traffic
12
Router support for QoS
Not mature or well testedOften the features are in experimental code trains, unsuitable for deployment in a production network
Marking, re-marking, policing, traffic shaping, appropriate queue scheduling disciplines etc
Insufficient #queues to support large scale service differentiationOften software implementations of required queueing disciplines instead of hardwareObviously this situation will improve in the future
13
Router code support (cont)
Example: Juniper routers4.x release: Can police DS BA’s but not much more
5.x release: More queue scheduling disciplines Per queue traffic shaping DSCP marking and re-marking DSCP based prioritization and forwarding
Eg. Assigning EF BA to a high priority queue Mapping of 802.1p to Layer-3 QoS
14
Parallel Network Infrastucture
Deploy parallel network infrastructurePlace QoS enabled routers on thisResearchers are happy, but ..Cost prohibitive
15
QoS policy issues
Where does marking occur? Endstations First hop routers or switches Edge routers
Who’s allowed to mark? How to validate? Complexity of deploying policies Additional controls and checks to enforce the
policies Policy servers: COPS, bandwidth brokers etc
16
Inter-domain signalling
No suitable mechanisms today for end2end inter-domain signalling of QoS reservations, call admission control Manual/static provisioningBandwidth brokers/SIBBS work ongoing
17
What we do today
To facilitate researchers doing wide-area QoS experimentation:Conscious effort not to impede Provide research labs with an uncongested path
though campus/gigapop to QoS enabled Abilene network
Make sure intervening routers don’t mark or re-mark DSCP code points
18
Abilene QoS testbed
19
Bandwidth Management Alternatives
University has experienced rapidly increasing bandwidth requirementsOverprovision the campus networkBuy more commodity Internet bandwidth through the gigaPoPEmploy rate limiting where appropriateEmploy lightweight QoS, eg. LBE/Scavenger
20
Endstation problems
Network apps often unable to use available bandwidth because of problems on end-stations: Poorly designed applications, application protocols Insufficiently sized socket buffers Inefficient, insufficiently tuned network stacks Duplex mismatch MTU mismatch
Having QoS in the network does not address this class of performance problems
21
Conclusion
We’re interested in QoSToo early to deploy end2end reservation based QoS in many production networksIntra-domain QoS a near-term possibility Both reservation based and lightweight VoIP, degrading non-mission critical traffic
End2End Inter-domain QoS difficult Co-ordination, SLAs, inter-domain signalling