Traffic Management for the Available Bit Rate (ABR) Service in ...
Traffic Management for the Available Bit Rate (ABR) Service in ... Traffic Management for the Available Bit Rate (ABR) Service in ...
of queues may not be achievable. High throughput is the goal in this case, and T 0 should be set close to the minimum value to allow queuesto be quickly drained. 6.21.3 Queue Drain Limit Factor QDLF QDLF ensures that there is enough capacity to drain out the transient queues. We recommend a value of 0.5 for WAN switches and 0.8 for LAN switches. WAN switches need to have greater drain capacity because of the longer feedback delays of its VCs and consequently longer response times to transient overloads. If the uctuations in load or capacity are of a time-scale much smaller than the feedback delay, the rate allocations using a high target rate may not be su cient. Transient queues may build up in such cases unless there is su cient capacity allocated to drain the queues. An example of such highvariation workload is TCP tra c combined with a VBR load which has an ON-OFF period of 1 ms, whereas the feedback delay is 10 ms. However, for LAN switches which can receive feedback rapidly, and T 0 is small, the function can move quickly through the range [QDLF� b]. Given these conditions, a large drain capacity is not required, since large queues never build up. For such con gurations, QDLF can have higher values like 0.8. Since the QDLF parameter de nes the lower bound of the function f(Tq), we should ensure that this value is reached only for large queue values. This can be achieved by choosing small values for a, or large values for T 0. Since large values of T 0 reduce the e ectiveness of the function f(Tq), the parameter a is chosen small. This is another factor in the choice of a. It turns out that the recommended value for a (1.15) is small enough for the QDLF values recommended. 185
6.22 Performance Evaluation of the ERICA and ERICA+ Schemes In this section, we shall describe the methodical performance evaluation of the ERICA scheme, and provides simple benchmarks to test the performance of di erent ATM switch algorithms. We use the principles discussed in chapter 3 to test ERICA for various con gurations, source models and background tra c patterns. We present the set of experiments conducted to ensure that ERICA meets all the requirements of switch algorithms. In the cases where the original algorithm failed to meet the requirements and an enhancement to the algorithm was deemed necessary, the performance of the basic algorithm is compared to the performance of the enhanced algorithm, and a discussion of why the enhancement was needed is presented.We prefer to use simple con gurations when applicable because they are more instructive in nding problems [49]. The results are presented in the form of four graphs for each con guration: 1. Graph of allowed cell rate (ACR) in Mbps over time for each source 2. Graph of ABR queue lengths in cells over time at each switch 3. Graph of link utilization (as a percentage) over time for each link 4. Graph of number of cells received at the destination over time for each destina- tion We will examine the e ciency and delay requirements, the fairness of the scheme, its transient and steady state performance, and nally its adaptation to variable capacity and various source tra c models. The experiments will also be selected 186
- Page 161 and 162: Transmitted Cell Rate Link Utilizat
- Page 163 and 164: Transmitted Cell Rate Link Utilizat
- Page 165 and 166: 5.8 Proof: Fairness Algorithm Impro
- Page 167 and 168: Region 2: y s and x s and U(1 + ) x
- Page 169 and 170: eing divided into eight non-overlap
- Page 171 and 172: Proof for Region 2 Triangular regio
- Page 173 and 174: have: and y 0 = y(1 ; ) z x + y 0 =
- Page 175 and 176: The OSU scheme is, therefore, incom
- Page 177 and 178: workloads, where input load and cap
- Page 179 and 180: (a) Regions used to prove Claim C1
- Page 181 and 182: 6.1 The Basic ERICA Algorithm The s
- Page 183 and 184: A ow chart of the basic algorithm i
- Page 185 and 186: efore competing sources can receive
- Page 187 and 188: that the latest CCR information is
- Page 189 and 190: the CCR value may not be an accurat
- Page 191 and 192: (Target Utilization) (Link Bandwidt
- Page 193 and 194: ABR Capacity Input Rate Overload Fa
- Page 195 and 196: of arithmetic averaging used above.
- Page 197 and 198: level of control. These parameters
- Page 199 and 200: 6.14 ERICA+: Queue Length as a Seco
- Page 201 and 202: 6.16 ERICA+: Maintain a \Pocket" of
- Page 203 and 204: hence, introduces a new parameter,
- Page 205 and 206: Figure 6.4: Linear functions for ER
- Page 207 and 208: and Figure 6.6: The queue control f
- Page 209 and 210: small averaging intervals. If the a
- Page 211: The maximum value of T 0 also depen
- Page 215 and 216: espectively. The target delay T 0 i
- Page 217 and 218: 6.22.4 Fairness Figure 6.9: Parking
- Page 219 and 220: st link, VC 15 is limited to a thro
- Page 221 and 222: From the gures, it is clear that ER
- Page 223 and 224: counts the bursty source as active
- Page 225 and 226: 6.23 Summary of the ERICA and ERICA
- Page 227 and 228: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (c) Link
- Page 229 and 230: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (c) Link
- Page 231 and 232: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (c) Link
- Page 233 and 234: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (basic ER
- Page 235 and 236: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (basic ER
- Page 237 and 238: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (c) Link
- Page 239 and 240: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (c) Link
- Page 241 and 242: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (c) Link
- Page 243 and 244: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (c) Link
- Page 245 and 246: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (c) Link
- Page 247 and 248: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (c) Link
- Page 249 and 250: (a) Transmitted Cell Rate (basic ER
- Page 251 and 252: RM cells. In this chapter, we devot
- Page 253 and 254: low. This tradeo was discovered and
- Page 255 and 256: in the speci cation. b) ACR shall n
- Page 257 and 258: 7.1.6 December 1995 Proposals There
- Page 259 and 260: Figure 7.2: Multiplicative vsAdditi
- Page 261 and 262: is never triggered. However, the PR
6.22 Per<strong>for</strong>mance Evaluation of <strong>the</strong> ERICA and ERICA+<br />
Schemes<br />
In this section, we shall describe <strong>the</strong> methodical per<strong>for</strong>mance evaluation of <strong>the</strong><br />
ERICA scheme, and provides simple benchmarks to test <strong>the</strong> per<strong>for</strong>mance of di erent<br />
ATM switch algorithms. We use <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciples discussed <strong>in</strong> chapter 3 to test ERICA<br />
<strong>for</strong> various con gurations, source models and background tra c patterns.<br />
We present <strong>the</strong> set of experiments conducted to ensure that ERICA meets all<br />
<strong>the</strong> requirements of switch algorithms. In <strong>the</strong> cases where <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al algorithm<br />
failed to meet <strong>the</strong> requirements and an enhancement to <strong>the</strong> algorithm was deemed<br />
necessary, <strong>the</strong> per<strong>for</strong>mance of <strong>the</strong> basic algorithm is compared to <strong>the</strong> per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
of <strong>the</strong> enhanced algorithm, and a discussion of why <strong>the</strong> enhancement was needed is<br />
presented.We prefer to use simple con gurations when applicable because <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
more <strong>in</strong>structive <strong>in</strong> nd<strong>in</strong>g problems [49]. The results are presented <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>m of<br />
four graphs <strong>for</strong> each con guration:<br />
1. Graph of allowed cell rate (ACR) <strong>in</strong> Mbps over time <strong>for</strong> each source<br />
2. Graph of <strong>ABR</strong> queue lengths <strong>in</strong> cells over time at each switch<br />
3. Graph of l<strong>in</strong>k utilization (as a percentage) over time <strong>for</strong> each l<strong>in</strong>k<br />
4. Graph of number of cells received at <strong>the</strong> dest<strong>in</strong>ation over time <strong>for</strong> each dest<strong>in</strong>a-<br />
tion<br />
We will exam<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> e ciency and delay requirements, <strong>the</strong> fairness of <strong>the</strong> scheme,<br />
its transient and steady state per<strong>for</strong>mance, and nally its adaptation to variable<br />
capacity and various source tra c models. The experiments will also be selected<br />
186