Date post: | 17-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | spencer-morrison |
View: | 255 times |
Download: | 4 times |
Chapter 6Multimedia Networking
Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach
Featuring the Internet, 2nd edition.
Jim Kurose, Keith RossAddison-Wesley, July 2002.
A note on the use of these ppt slides:We’re making these slides freely available to all (faculty, students, readers). They’re in powerpoint form so you can add, modify, and delete slides (including this one) and slide content to suit your needs. They obviously represent a lot of work on our part. In return for use, we only ask the following: If you use these slides (e.g., in a class) in substantially unaltered form, that you mention their source (after all, we’d like people to use our book!) If you post any slides in substantially unaltered form on a www site, that you note that they are adapted from (or perhaps identical to) our slides, and note our copyright of this material. Modified by Amy Chung, Melissa Utzinger, and Brigitte BolosThanks and enjoy! JFK / KWR
All material copyright 1996-2002J.F Kurose and K.W. Ross, All Rights Reserved
Chapter 6 outline
6.1 Multimedia Networking Applications
6.2 Streaming stored audio and video RTSP
6.3 Real-time, Interactivie Multimedia: Internet Phone Case Study
6.4 Protocols for Real-Time Interactive Applications RTP,RTCP SIP
6.5 Beyond Best Effort 6.6 Scheduling and Policing
Mechanisms 6.7 Integrated Services 6.8 RSVP 6.9 Differentiated Services
Quality of Service on IP Networks Review
Quality of Service: The ability to provide consistent, predictable data service delivery to satisfy customer application requirements. [Sysmaster.com]
“Best-effort” does not guarantee Quality of Service End-to-end packet delay and loss
All packets are treated equally at routers
Beyond “Best Effort”
Future: next generation Internet with QoS guarantees
Differentiated Services
RSVP
Integrated Services
Four principles of QoS Guarantees Packet classification Isolation: scheduling and policing High resource utilization Call Admission
Why do we NEED QoS guarantees?
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Napster Was Nothing Compared With This Year’s Bandwidth Problems, 28 Sept. 2001. http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i05/05a04401.htm
Download File Size ComparisonCompressed movies • Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon 800 Mb
Video Games• Tomb Raider 3 203 Mb
TV shows• The Simpsons 25 Mb
MP3s• Metallica song 5.7 Mb
Photos• 8 x 10 Color image 81 Kb
Text documents• Microsoft Word Document 19 Kb
Inbound/Outbound Traffic
Simple Network Scenario w/2 applications
Principles for QOS Guarantees
Example: 1Mbps IP phone, FTP share 1.5 Mbps link. bursts of FTP can congest router, cause audio loss
packet marking needed for router to distinguish between different classes; and new router policy to treat packets accordingly
Principle 1
IP datagram format
ver length
32 bits
data (variable length,typically a TCP
or UDP segment)
16-bit identifier
Internet checksum
time tolive
32 bit source IP address
head.len
type ofservice
flgsfragment
offsetupper layer
32 bit destination IP address
Options (if any)
Application Priority?
Should multimedia applications get priority over
non-delay sensitive applications?
Bandwidth Shaping
1. Monitora. Traffic types
b. Traffic issues
c. Problem location
2. Classifya. WAN links or Departments
b. Applications and Protocols
3. Enforce (Traffic Control)a. Policy writing and application
4. Report
5. Conclude
Bandwidth Shaping: Traffic Types
What Internet applications are we running?
Which applications are important to academics?
Which applications are not important?
Which applications are sensitive to delay?
Bandwidth Shaping: Traffic Issues
What do you think are some of the traffic issues on this
campus?
Where is the problem?
Bandwidth Shaping: Classify
Pipes
WAN links
Departments
Virtual Channels
SMTP
VoIP
FTP
HTTP
• MP3 downloads (*.mp3)
Bandwidth Usage Analysis by Pipes
Department Bandwidth Usage
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Graphics
Sales
Administrative
Bandwidth Usage Analysis by Virtual Channel
Administrative Dept Bandwidth Usage
HTTPVoIP
EmailFTPICMP
MP3 DownloadsOther media
Sales Dept Bandwidth Usage
HTTP
VoIP
FTP
ICMP
MP3 Downloads
Other media
Pipe Bandwidth Usage Analysis by Time of Day
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Hotmail Napster Main CNN iTunes
Sales Dept Server Access at 1pm
Hotmail
Napster
Main
CNN
iTunes
Pipe Bandwidth Usage Analysis by Time of Day
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Google Smith.edu CNN.com NYTimes.com
iTunes
Sales Dept Server Access at 7pm
Smith.edu
CNN.com
NY Times.com
iTunes
Bandwidth Shaping: Enforcing Policy
Policy Writing and Application
Minimum
Maximum
Maximum number of connections
Priority
NetEnforcer Training Demo
Principles for QOS Guarantees (more)
Scenario 1: 1Mbps Audio app and FTP transfer Scenario 2: 1Mbps Audio app and High-Priority FTP
Scenario 3: Misbehaving Audio App and FTP transfer
Principles for QOS Guarantees (more)
what do you think it means when an audio app misbehaves?
usually audio app needs and uses 1Mbps sometimes either maliciously or due to application error, it sends out
packets at 1.5Mbps or higher this is usually termed application misbehaving
what do you think happens when an audio app misbehaves?
ftp starvation (FTP packets starve and get no bandwidth) they will receive no service on the R1 – R2 link
Principles for QOS Guarantees (more)
policing mechanisms at the network edge marks all packets so it can tell if application misbehaves the policing mechanism will enforce by:
• drop or delaying packets• audio cannot exceed peak rate of 1Mbps
provide protection (isolation) for one class from othersPrinciple 2
Principles for QOS Guarantees (more)
While providing isolation, it is desirable to use resources as efficiently as possible
Principle 3
second enforcement scenario Can allocate a fixed amount of bandwidth (audio: 1 Mbps, ftp: 0.5Mbps) Any forseeable problems?
• when audio is not in use, ftp will be stuck with 0.5 Mbps
Principles for QOS Guarantees (more)
Scenario 1: 1Mbps Audio app and FTP transfer Scenario 2: 1Mbps Audio app and High-Priority FTP
Scenario 3: Misbehaving Audio App and FTP transfer Scenario 4: Two 1Mbps Audio apps overloaded
1.5Mbps link
Principles for QOS Guarantees (more)
Final scenario two 1Mbps audio applications even with the first three principles, this is a lose-lose
situation If they share, each will get 0.75Mbps, which is no good for
audio transfers• 25% loss on both lines
Principles for QOS Guarantees (more)
So what to do? when minimum quality of service is needed
• network will block flow or allow flow telephone network is an example that performs call blocking
Call Admission: flow declares its needs, network may block call (e.g., busy signal) if it cannot meet needs
Principle 4
Summary of QoS Principles
Let’s next look at mechanisms for achieving this ….
Chapter 6 outline 6.1 Multimedia
Networking Applications 6.2 Streaming stored
audio and video RTSP
6.3 Real-time, Interactivie Multimedia: Internet Phone Case Study
6.4 Protocols for Real-Time Interactive Applications RTP,RTCP SIP
6.5 Beyond Best Effort 6.6 Scheduling and
Policing Mechanisms 6.7 Integrated Services 6.8 RSVP 6.9 Differentiated
Services
What is Scheduling?
Scheduling:
the mechanism
which chooses
the next packet
to send out on a link
Four Scheduling Mechanisms
First-In-First-Out (FIFO) Priority Queuing Round Robin Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)
What are some possible scheduling mechanisms? (hint: similar policies are used for the dispatcher in OS )
First In First Out
discard policy: if packet arrives to full queue• Tail drop: drop arriving packet• priority: drop/remove on priority basis• random: drop/remove randomly
Non-Preemptive: Transmission of a packet is not interrupted once it has begun.
FIFO scheduling: send in order of arrival to queue
real-world example: Airline check in.
Priority Queuing
class may depend on marking or other header info, e.g. IP source/dest, port numbers, etc..
Real world example: Airplanes
Priority scheduling: transmit highest priority queued packet first.
multiple classes, with different priorities
Potential Problem with Priority Queuing
Starvation Prone. Motivation for our next two scheduling mechanisms
Round Robin
real world example: traffic jam
multiple classes cyclically scan across queues, serving one from each class (if available)
Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)
Guaranteed a percentage of the bandwidth
Generalized Round Robin
Each class gets weighted amount of service in each
cycle
Policing Mechanisms
Burst Size: max. number of pkts sent consecutively
(with no intervening idle)
Goal: limit traffic to not exceed declared parameters
Three common-used criteria:
Average Rate: How many pkts can be sent per unit time (in the long run)?
crucial question: what is the interval length: 100 packets
per sec or 6000 packets per min have same average!
Peak Rate: 6000 pkts per min. (ppm) avg. rate
1500 pkts per sec. (pps) peak rate
The Leaky Bucket
Token Bucket: limit input to specified Burst Size and Average Rate.
bucket can hold b tokens tokens generated at rate r token/sec unless bucket full over interval of length t: number of packets admitted
less than or equal to (r t + b).
The Leaky Bucket
token bucket, WFQ combine to provide guaranteed upper bound on delay, i.e., QoS guarantee!
WFQ
token rate, r
bucket size, b
per-flowrate, R
D = b/Rmax
arrivingtraffic
Other Sources
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Napster Was Nothing Compared With This Year’s Bandwidth Problems, 28 Sept. 2001. http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i05/05a04401.htm
Allot Communications. NetEnforcer Online Tutorial. http://www.bandwidth-qos.co.uk/bandwidth-shaping-product/