Supporting DiffServ with Per-Class Traffic Engineering in MPLS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Supporting DiffServ with Per-Class Traffic Engineering in MPLS

Description:

The paper is proposing a new MPLS traffic engineering scheme to meet the demand ... the packet is called a Differentiated Service Cod Point, or DSCP, that has 6-bit ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:36
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 18
Provided by: heshamb
Learn more at: https://sites.pitt.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Supporting DiffServ with Per-Class Traffic Engineering in MPLS


1
Supporting DiffServ with Per-Class Traffic
Engineering in MPLS
2
Outlines
  • The paper is proposing a new MPLS traffic
    engineering scheme to meet the demand for Quality
    of Service (QoS).
  • This scheme is a modified version of a previously
    proposed QoS routing algorithm.
  • The proposed scheme enhances E-LSP with per-class
    TE and load balancing.
  • Compared with the original E-LSP and E-LSP with
    load balancing for the support of EF, AF, and BE.
  • Simulation results are shown.

3
Background
  • MPLS and DiffServ together provide a potential
    model that supports QoS over IP network.
  • DiffServ model divides traffic into a small
    number of classes and allocates resources on a
    per-class basis.
  • Because DiffServ has a few different classes, a
    packets class can be marked directly in the
    packet.
  • The mark in the packet is called a Differentiated
    Service Cod Point, or DSCP, that has 6-bit long
    within the IP header.

4
Background (2)
  • DSCP identifies a per-hop behavior or PHB.
  • The standard PHBs include
  • Expedited Forwarding (EF) Packets are forwarded
    with minimal delay and low loss.
  • Assured Forwarding (AF) Packets have different
    classes and different drop preferences.
  • Best Effort (BE) No special treatment.
  • DSCPs is carried in the IP header, but MPLS LSRs
    dont examine that. ? we need a way to determine
    the PHB from the label header.
  • Two ways to solve that E-LSP, and L-LSP.

5

Background (3)
  • E-LSP The EXP field of the MPLS Shim Header
    conveys to the label-switch router (LSR) the PHB
    to be applied to the packet.
  • L-LSP - That the packets scheduling treatment is
    inferred by the LSR exclusively from the packets
    label value while the packets drop precedence is
    conveyed in the EXP field of the MPLS Shim Header
    or in the encapsulating link-layer-specific
    selective drop mechanism.

6
Features of the proposed Scheme
  • Labeling
  • The EXP field encodes the scheduling treatment
    and drop precedence just as in E-LSP.
  • Load balancing by Service Classes
  • Traffic flows of different service classes is
    distributed over different LSPs.
  • Routing
  • Uses a simple constraint-based routing algorithm
    that is modified from an Optimal QoS Routing
    Algorithm previously developed 10.

7
Optimal QoS Routing Algorithm
  • It solves the QoS multicast routing problem that
    requires two constraints delay and bandwidth.
  • It is called also Maximum-Bandwidth with Delay
    Constraint algorithm, MBDC.

MBDC Algorithm
8
The Proposed Algorithm
  • i. Prunes the topology database of all links that
    dont have sufficient residual/reservable
    bandwidth or that is administratively forbidden
    (including excess delay) for the LSP
  • ii. Find the minimum-cost path towards the LSPs
    egress router (use propagation delay as the cost
    for each link)
  • Iii. If several equal-cost paths remain, select
    the one with the fewest number of hops
  • Iv. If several equal-cost paths remain, apply the
    load- balancing rule choose the path that has
    the maximum residual bandwidth
  • V. Steps i to iv are repeated for each LSP
    computation, beginning from the highest service
    class

9
Performance Evaluation
  • Three schemes are simulated
  • Original E-LSP
  • E-LSP with multiple path load balancing
  • E-LSP with per-class traffic engineering, the
    proposed scheme

10
(No Transcript)
11
Simulation Results
Flow 1 (EF) Case 3a, 3b,and 3c have the smallest
delay and delay jitter. Throughput is the same
for all schemes.
12
Simulation Results (2)
Flow 2 (AF) All schemes have similar delay and
throughput. The proposed scheme yields better
delay jitter.
13
Simulation Results (3)
Flow 3 (BE) Delay and delay jitter are reduced
dramatically with the proposed scheme. Throughput
also is improved.
14
Simulation Results (4)
Flow 4 (BE) The proposed scheme in case 3a has
dramatically reduced Delay and delay
jitter. While facing more AF flows, in case 3b,
Throughput, delay, and delay jitter are close to
scheme 1.
15
Simulation Results (5)
Flow 5 (BE/AF/EF) When flow 5 is BE ? flow
3. When flow 5 is AF ? the proposed scheme in
case 3b has much better performance. When flow 5
is EF ? LSP is shifted to 4-9-8, and flow 2,3,4
will have more BW.
16
(No Transcript)
17
Conclusion
  • The proposed a per-class TE scheme that enhances
    E-LSP demonstrates better utilization of the
    network resources.
  • It is able to accommodate more QoS flows while
    offering better performance to existing flows.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com