Title: Xin Wang
1Resource Negotiation, Pricing and QoS
for Adaptive Multimedia Applications
- Xin Wang
- With Henning Schulzrinne
- Internet Real -Time Laboratory
- Columbia University
- http//www.cs.columbia
.edu/xinwang/RNAP.html
2Todays IP Networks
Service Level Agreements (SLA) are negotiated
based on Application Specific Needs bandwidth,
loss, delay, jitter, availability, price
ISP Networks
Applications
IP Network
Service
User
SCOPE
- Growth of new IP services and applications with
different bandwidth and quality of service
requirements - Presents opportunities and challenges for service
providers
3The needs of Next Generation Service
Providers
- Revenue from the traditional connectivity
services (raw bandwidth) is declining - Increase revenue by offering innovative IP
services - Deliver high-margin, differentiated services
- VoIP, VPN, Applications Hosting etc
- Gain competitive advantage by deploying new
services more quickly, placing a premium on time
to market and time to scale - Reduce cost and operation complexity
- Evolve from static network management to dynamic
service provisioning - Reduce costs by automating network and service
management
4Internet Structure
5NORDUnet Traffic Analysis
6NORDUnet Traffic Analysis
- Results
- All access links (interconnect ISPs or connect
private networks to ISPs), including
trans-Atlantic links, can get congested. - Average utilization is low 20-30
- Peak utilization can be high up to 100
- Congestion Ratio (peak/average) as high as 5.
- Peak duration can be very long
- Chicago NAP congested once in 8/00, lasted 7
hours. - TeleGlobe links congested every workday in 8/00
and 9/00 - Reasons Frequent re-configuration and
upgradingLoad balancing to protect own users.
7 Solution - Over-provisioning?
- Add enough bandwidth for all applications in
access network / backbone - Will over-provisioning be sufficient to avoid
congestion? - How much bandwidth is enough to meet diverse user
requirements? - No intrinsic upper limit on bandwidth use
- How much does it cost to add capacity?
8Bandwidth Pricing
- Reality leased bandwidth price has not been
dropping consistently and dramatically. - Facts
- 300 mile T1 price
- 1987 10,000/month
- 1992 4,000/month
- 1998 6,000/month (thanks to high Internet
demand) - 100-mile cabling cost in 1998 65,000
- Links connecting ISPs are very expensive
9Bandwidth Pricing (cont.)
- Facts
- International Frame Relay with 256-kbps
thousands dollars a month. - Transit DS-3 link 50,000/month between
carriers. - Transit OC-3 link 150,000/month between
carriers. - Chicago NAP
- 3,900/month/DS-3,
- 4,700/month/OC-3.
Bandwidth may be cheap, but not free Higher-speed
connection -- higher recurring monthly
costs. Option - manage the existing bandwidth
better, with a service model which uses bandwidth
efficiently.
10A More Efficient Service Model
- Quality of Service (QoS)
- Condition the network to provide predictability
to an application even during high user demand - Provide multiple levels of QoS to meet diverse
user requirements - How efficiently does a QoS mechanism manage
bandwidth? How can a user select one out of a
spectrum of services? How much does a user need
to pay for QoS? - Application adaptation
- Source rate adaptation based on network
conditions can avoid congestion and lead to
efficient bandwidth utilization - How about also QoS? Why would an application
adapt?
11A More Efficient Service Model (contd)
- Service selection and dynamic resource
negotiation - An Integrated mechanism by which the user can
select one out of a spectrum of services - Network commits resources for short intervals -
better response to changes in network conditions
and user demand allows better QoS support for
adaptive applications - Usage-,QoS-,demand-sensitive pricing
- Allow network to price services based on
resources consumed, and allocate resources
based on user willingness-to-pay - Give user incentive to select appropriate service
based on requirements, adapt demand during
network resource scarcity in response to increase
in price
12What We Add to Enable This Model
- A dynamic resource negotiation protocol RNAP
- An abstract Resource Negotiation And Pricing
protocol - Enables user and network (or two network domains)
to dynamically negotiate multiple services with
different QoS characteristics - Enables network to formulate and communicate
prices and charges - Lightweight and flexible embedded in other
protocols, e.g., RSVP, or implemented
independently - Ensures service predictability commit service
and price for an interval - Supports multi-party negotiation senders,
receivers, or both - Reliable and scalable
- A demand-sensitive pricing model
- Enables differential charging for supporting
multiple levels of services services priced to
reflect the cost and long-term user demand - Allows for congestion pricing to motivate user
adaptation
13What we add... (contd)
- Demonstrate a complete resource negotiation
framework (RNAP, pricing model, user adaptation)
on test-bed network - Simulations show significant advantages relative
to static resource allocation and fixed pricing - Much lower service blocking rate under resource
contention - Service assurances under large or bursty offered
loads, without highly conservative provisioning - Higher perceived user benefit and higher network
revenue
14 Outline
- RNAP Architecture and Messaging
- Pricing models
- Existing model
- Usage and congestion-based pricing model
- Pricing mechanism
- User adaptation
- Test-bed demonstration of Resource Negotiation
Framework - Simulation and discussion of Resource Negotiation
Framework
Resource Negotiation Framework
15Protocol Architectures Centralized
Host Resource Negotiator
RNAP Messages
Network Resource Negotiator
NRN
NRN
NRN
HRN
HRN
Access Domain - A
Edge Router
Access Domain - B
Internal Router
Intra-domain messages
Transit Domain
RNAP-C
16Protocol Architectures Distributed
RNAP Messages
HRN
LRN
LRN
LRN
LRN
LRN
LRN
LRN
LRN
HRN
LRN
LRN
LRN
Access Domain - A
LRN
LRN
Edge Router
Access Domain - B
Internal Router
Transit Domain
RNAP-D
17RNAP Messages
Query Inquires about available services, prices
Query
Quotation
Quotation Specifies service availability,
accumulates service statistics,
prices
Reserve
Commit
Reserve Requests services and resources,
Modifies earlier requests
Periodic negotiation
Quotation
Commit Admits the service request at a specific
price or denies it.
Reserve
Commit
Close Tears down negotiation session
Close
Release Releases the resources
Release
18Message Aggregation (RNAP-D)
Turn on router alert
Turn off router alert
Sink-tree-based aggregation
19Message Aggregation (RNAP-C)
NRN
Sink-tree-based aggregation
20RNAP Message Aggregation Summary
- Aggregation when senders share the same
destination network - Messages merged by source or intermediate domains
- Messages de-aggregated at destination border
routers (RNAP-D), or NRNs (RNAP-C)
- Original messages sent directly to
destination/source domains without interception
by intermediate RNAP agents aggregate message
reserves and collects price at intermediate
nodes/domains - Overhead Reduction
- Processing overhead, storage of states
21Block Negotiation (network-network)
- Aggregated resources are added/removed in large
blocks to minimize negotiation overhead and
reduce network dynamics
Bandwidth
time
22Outline
- RNAP Architecture and Messaging
- Pricing models
- Comparison of model
- Usage and congestion-based pricing model
- Pricing mechanism
- User adaptation
- Test-bed demonstration of Resource Negotiation
Framework - Simulation and discussion of Resource Negotiation
Framework
Resource Negotiation Framework
23Pricing in Current Internet
- Access-rate-dependent flat charge (AC)
- Simple, predictable
- Difficult to compromise between access speed and
cost - No incentive for users to limit usage
congestion - Usage-based charge
- Volume-dependent charge (V)
- Time-base charge (T)
- work better for uniform per-time unit resource
demands, e.g., telephone - Access charge Usage-based charge
- Per-hour charge after certain period of use, or
per-unit charge after some amount of traffic
transmitted. - Flat charge for basic service, usage charge for
extra bandwidth or premium services
24Two Volume-based Pricing Strategies
- Fixed-Price (FP) fixed unit volume price
- FP-FL per-byte charge are same for all services
- FP-PR service class dependent
- FP-T time-of-day dependent
- FP-PR-T FP-PR FP-T
- During congestion higher blocking rate OR higher
dropping rate and delay - Congestion-dependent-Price (CP) FP
congestion-sensitive price component - CP-FL, CP-PR, CP-T, CP-PR-T
- During congestion users maintain service by
paying more OR reducing sending rate OR
switching to lower service class - Reduced rate of service blocking, packet dropping
and delay
25Important Time Scales
- Technical levels of interaction
- Monetary levels of interaction
atomic
short-term
medium-term
long-term
Retransmission
Flow Control
Error Handling
Reservation
Resource
Capacity
Planning
Scheduling
Feedback
Policing
Routing
time
Congestion
Time-of-day
Pricing
Flat Rates
Pricing
26Pricing Strategies
- Holding price and charge based on cost of
blocking other users by holding bandwidth even
without sending data - phj ? j (pu j - pu j-1) , chij (n) ph j r
ij (n)? j - Usage price and charge optimize the providers
profit
- max Sl x j (pu1 , pu2 , , puJ ) puj - f(C),
s.t. r (x (pu2 , pu2 , , puJ )) ? R
- cuij (n) pu j v ij (n)
- Congestion price and charge drive demand to
supply level (two mechanisms)
27Usage Price for Differentiated Service
- Usage price based on cost of class bandwidth
- lower target load (higher QoS) -gt higher per-unit
bandwidth price - Parameters
- pbasic basic rate for fully used bandwidth
- ? j expected load ratio of class j
- xij effective bandwidth consumption of
application i - Aj constant elasticity demand parameter
- Price for class j puj pbasic / ? j
- Demand of class j xj ( puj ) Aj / puj
- Effective bandwidth consumption xe j ( puj )
Aj / ( puj ? j ) - Network maximizes profit
- max Sl (Aj / pu j ) pu j - f (C), puj
pbasic / ? j , s. t. Sl Aj / ( pu j ? j ) ? C - Hence pbasic Sl Aj / C , puj Sl Aj /(C? j)
28Congestion price first mechanism - Tatonnement
- Tatonnement process (CPA-TAT) network applies
congestion charge proportional to excess demand
relative to target utilization - pc j (n) min pcj (n-1) ? j (Dj, Sj) x
(Dj-Sj)/Sj,0 , pmaxj
- ccij (n) pc j v ij (n)
29Congestion price second mechanism - M-bid
Second-price Auction
- Auction models in literature
- Assume unique bandwidth/price preference, one bid
- Service uncertainty not know about high demand
until rejected - Higher setup delay, signaling burst, life-time
auction, user response to auction results not
considered - M-bid auction model
- User bids (bandwidth, price) for a number of
bandwidths, bids obtained by sampling utility
function. - Network selects highest bids (one per user)
charges highest rejected bid price - During high demand lower bandwidth (higher price
per unit bandwidth) bids get selected more users
served - Inter-auction admission to reduce setup delay
- Support auction for a period to help for
congestion control
30Outline
- RNAP Architecture and Messaging
- Pricing models
- Comparison of model
- Usage and congestion-based pricing model
- Pricing mechanism
- User adaptation
- Test-bed demonstration of Resource Negotiation
Framework - Simulation and discussion of Resource Negotiation
Framework
Resource Negotiation Framework
31Rate Adaptation of Multimedia System
- Enable multimedia applications to gain optimal
perceptual value based on the network conditions
and user profile. - A Host Resource Negotiator (HRN) negotiates
services with network on behalf of a multimedia
system. - Utility function users preference or
willingness to pay
Cost
U1
U2
Utility/cost/budget
U3
Budget
Bandwidth
32Example Utility Function
- User defines utility at discrete bandwidth, QoS
levels - Utility is a function of bandwidth at fixed QoS
- An example utility function U (x) U0 ? log
(x / xm) - U0 perceived (opportunity) value at minimum
bandwidth - ? sensitivity of the utility to bandwidth
- Function of both bandwidth and QoS
- U (x) U0 ? log (x / xm) - kd d - kl l , for x
? xm - kd sensitivity to delay
- kl sensitivity to loss
33 Two Rate Adaptation Models
- User adaptation under CPA-TAT (tatonnement-based
pricing) - Optimize perceived surplus subject to budget and
application requirements U Si Ui (xi (Tspec,
Rspec) - max Sl Ui (xi ) - Ci (xi) , s. t. Sl Ci (xi)
? b , xmini ? xi ? xmaxi - With the example utility functions
- max Sl U0i ?i log (xi / xmi ) - kdi d - kl
i l - pi xi , s.t. Sl pi xi ? b , x ? xm , d
? D, l ? L - Without budget constraint x i ?i / pi
- With budget constraint x i bi / pi, with b
i b (? i / Sl ? k ) - User adaptation under CPA-AUC (second-price
auction) - Submit M-bid derived by sampling utility
function adapt rate based on allocated
bandwidth/QoS - Adaptation of applications in multimedia system
- Distribute bid/allocated bandwidth among
applications for optimal overall surplus
34Stability and Oscillation Reduction
- Congestion-sensitive pricing has been shown to be
stable, see references. - Oscillation reduction
- Users re-negotiate only if price change exceeds
a given threshold - Network update price only when traffic change
exceeds a threshold negotiate resources in
larger blocks between domains
35Outline
- RNAP Architecture and Messaging
- Pricing models
- Comparison of model
- Usage and congestion-based pricing model
- Pricing mechanism
- User adaptation
- Test-bed demonstration of Resource Negotiation
Framework - Simulation and discussion of Resource Negotiation
Framework
Resource Negotiation Framework
36Test-bed Architecture
- Demonstrate functionality and performance
improvement - blocking rate, average loss and delay, price
stability, perceived media quality - Host
- HRN negotiates resources for a system
- Host processes (HRN, VIC, RAT) communicate
through Mbus - Network
- FreeBSD 3.4 ALTQ 2.2, CBQ extended for DiffServ
- NRNs
- Process RNAP messages
- Admission control, monitor service statistics,
compute price - At edge, dynamically configure the conditioners
and form charge - Inter-entity signaling RNAP
VIC
RAT
Mbus
HRN
RNAP
NRN
37Functions of Routers
- Interior routers per-class policing, e.g,
TBMETER (in/out) for a class - Edge routers flow conditioning/policing based on
SLA
38Network Resource Negotiator (NRN)
- Monitor statistics and provide price for each
service class - Measurement-based admission control
- predict future demand, update congestion price
based on predictions
39Network States
- Per-class bandwidth and price variations
- Reduction in blocking due to adaptation
40Adaptive Wireless Terminal
- WAP development over Nokia Toolkit 2.0
- Currently cell phone services
- Flat pricing and best effort when congestion,
all users get worse quality - coarse voice, busy
signal, cut off - Using our solution
- Optionally provide real-time pricing information,
e.g., every 10 minutes or every call (lower
average charge for reward) - Customers choices
- pay a premium to have best quality
- pay less by tolerating worse quality
- back off to call another time.
- Reduce the blocking rate of overall network
41 Outline
- RNAP Architecture and Messaging
- Pricing models
- Comparison of model
- Usage and congestion-based pricing model
- Pricing mechanism
- User adaptation
- Test-bed demonstration of Resource Negotiation
Framework - Simulation and discussion of Resource Negotiation
Framework
Resource Negotiation Framework
42Simulation Design
- Performance comparison
- Network with dynamic services and rate-adaptive
users versus network with non-adaptive users - Fixed price policy (FP) (usage price holding
price) versus congestion price based adaptive
service (CPA) (usage price holding price
congestion price) - Four groups of experiments
- (1) Effect of traffic burstiness (2) Effect of
traffic load (3) Load balance between classes
(4) Effect of admission control - Engineering metrics bottleneck traffic arrival
rate, average packet loss and delay, user
request blocking probability - Economic metrics average and total user
benefit, end-to-end price and its standard
deviation, network revenue
43 Simulation Models
- Network Simulator (NS-2)
- Weighted Round Robin (WRR) scheduler
- Three classes EF, AF, BE
- EF tail dropping, limited to 50 packets load
threshold 40, delay bound 2 ms, loss bound 10-6 - AF RED-with-In-Out (RIO), limited to 100
packets load threshold 60, delay bound 5 ms,
loss bound 10-4 - BE Random Early Detection (RED), limited to 200
packets load threshold 90, delay bound 100 ms,
loss bound 10-2 - Sources mix of on-off and Pareto on-off (shape
parameter 1.5) - Negotiation period 30 s, session length 10 min
44Simulation Architecture
Topology 1 (60 users)
Topology 2 (360 users)
45Effect of Traffic Burstiness
Average packet loss
Average packet delay
46Effect of Traffic Burstiness (contd)
Price average and standard deviation of AF class
Average user benefit
47Effect of Traffic Load (contd)
Average packet loss
Average packet delay
48Effect of Traffic Load
Average user benefit
Price average and standard deviation of AF class
49Load Balance between Classes (contd)
Average packet delay
Average packet loss
50Load Balance between Classes
Variation over time of the price of AF class
Ratio of AF class traffic migrating through class
re-selection
51Effect of Admission Control
Average packet loss
Average packet delay
52Effect of Admission Control (contd.)
Average and standard deviation of AF class price
User request blocking rate
53Conclusions
- RNAP
- Supports dynamic service negotiation, mechanisms
for price and charge collation, auction bids and
results distribution - Allows for both centralized and distributed
architectures - Supports multi-party negotiation senders,
receivers, or both - Can be stand-alone, or embedded inside other
protocols - Reliable and scalable
- Pricing model
- Consider resource consumption, long-term user
demand and short-term traffic fluctuation use
congestion-sensitive component to motivate user
demand adaptation during resource scarcity - Application adaptation
- Maximize user perceptual value, tradeoff between
quality and expenditure
54Conclusions (contd)
- M-bid Auction Model
- Serves more users than comparable schemes, and
has less signaling overhead, greater certainty of
service availability, and lower setup delay - Simulation results
- Differentiated service requires different target
loads in each class - CPA policy coupled with user adaptation
effectively limit congestion, provide lower
blocking rate, higher user satisfaction and
network revenue than with the FP policy - Both auction and tatonnement process can be used
to calculate the congestion price auction scheme
gains higher perceived user benefit and network
utilization at cost of implementation complexity
and setup delay - Without admission control, service assurance by
restricting the load to the targeted level with
admission control, blocking rate and price
dynamics get reduced
55Conclusions (contd)
- Allowing service class migration further
stabilizes price - Users with different demand elasticity share
bandwidth proportional to their willingness to
pay - Even a small proportion of user adaptation
results in a significant performance improvement
for the entire user population - Performance of CPA further improves as the
network scales and more connections share the
resources - Future work
- Propose light-weight resource management protocol
- Cost distribution in QoS-enhanced multicast
network - Pricing in the presence of alternatives path or
competitive network - User valuation models for different QoS
- Resource provision in wireless environment
56 Some References
- X. Wang, H. Schulzrinne, Auction or T?tonnement
- Finding Congestion Prices for Adaptive
Applications, submitted. - X. Wang, H. Schulzrinne, Pricing Network
Resources for Adaptive Applications in a
Differentiated Services Network, In Proceeding
of INFOCOM'2001, April 22-26, Anchorage,
Alaska. - X. Wang, H. Schulzrinne, An Integrated Resource
Negotiation, Pricing, and QoS Adaptation
Framework for Multimedia Applications, IEEE
JSAC, vol. 18, 2000. Special Issue on Internet
QoS. - X. Wang, H. Schulzrinne, Performance Study of
Congestion Price based Adaptive Service, In
Proc. International Workshop on Network and
Operating System Support for Digital Audio and
Video (NOSSDAV'00), Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
Jun. 2000. - X. Wang, H. Schulzrinne, Comparison of Adaptive
Internet Multimedia Applications, IEICE
Transactions on Communications, Vol. E82-B, No.
6, pp. 806--818, June 1999.