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 ...
The upstream bottleneck con guration shown in Figure 5.19 has a bottleneck at Sw1 where 15 VCs share the Sw1-Sw2 link. As a result the S15-D15 VC is not capable of utilizing its bandwidth share at the Sw2-Sw3 link. This excess bandwidth needs to be shared equally by the other two VCs. The table entry shows the number of cells received at the destination for either the S16-D16 VC or the S17-D17 VC. In the 2 source+VBR and the upstream bottleneck con gurations, the simulation was run for 400 ms (the destination receives data from time = 15 ms through 400 ms). In the parking lot con guration, the simulation was run for 200ms. VS/VD Opt # ! A B C D E F No VS/VD Con g # 2 source + VBR 31 31 32.5 34 32 33 30 Parking lot 22 22 23 20.5 23 20.5 19.5 Upstream bottleneck 61 61 61 60 61 61 62 Table 9.3: Cells received at the destination per source in Kcells As we compare the values in each row of the table, we nd that, in general, there is little di erence between the alternatives in terms of throughput. However, there is a slight increase in throughput when VS/VD is used over the case without VS/VD switch. Convergence Time The convergence time is a measure of how fast the scheme nishes the transient phase and reaches steady state. It is also sometimes called \transient response." The convergence times of the various options are shown in Table 9.4. The \transient" 359
con guration mentioned in the table has two ABR VCs sharing a bottleneck (likethe 2 source + VBR con guration, but without the VBR VC). One of the VCs comes on in the middle of the simulation and remains active for a period of 60 ms before going o . VS/VD Opt # ! A B C D E F No VS/VD Con g # Transient 50 50 65 20 55 25 60 Parking lot 120 100 170 45 125 50 140 Upstream bottleneck 95 75 75 20 95 20 70 Table 9.4: Convergence time in ms Observe that the convergence time of VS/VD option D (highlighted) is the best. Recall that this con guration corresponds to measuring the VC rate at the entry to the per-class queue, input rate measured at the per-class queue, link congestion a ecting both the next loop and the previous loop, the allocated rate updated at both FRM1 and BRM2. Maximum Transient Queue Length The maximum transient queues gives a measure of how askew the allocations were when compared to the optimal allocation and how soonthiswas corrected. The maximum transient queues are tabulated for various con gurations for each VS/VD option and for the case without VS/VD in Table 9.5. The table shows that VS/VD option D has very small transient queues in all the con gurations and the minimum queues in a majority of cases. This result, combined 360
- Page 335 and 336: like ERICA+ which uses the queueing
- Page 337 and 338: minimum fairshare is low. This may
- Page 339 and 340: 8.17 E ect of Long-Range Dependent
- Page 341 and 342: terminology) are called \Presentati
- Page 343 and 344: The key point is that the MPEG-2 ra
- Page 345 and 346: the MPEG-2 Transport Stream, and st
- Page 347 and 348: 8.17.4 Observations on the Long-Ran
- Page 349 and 350: For the video sources, we choose me
- Page 351 and 352: Video Sources ABR Metrics # Mean St
- Page 353 and 354: However, with modi cations to ERICA
- Page 355 and 356: Video Sources ABR Metrics # Avg Src
- Page 357 and 358: Video Sources ABR Metrics # Avg Src
- Page 359 and 360: On the other hand, if the applicati
- Page 361 and 362: of managing bu ers, queueing, sched
- Page 363 and 364: hence control the total load on the
- Page 365 and 366: call such a switch a \VS/VD switch"
- Page 367 and 368: Figure 9.2: Per-class queues in a n
- Page 369 and 370: which arises is where the rate calc
- Page 371 and 372: 9.2 The ERICA Switch Scheme: Renota
- Page 373 and 374: The unknowns in the above equations
- Page 375 and 376: Figure 9.9: Two methods to measure
- Page 377 and 378: 9.4 VS/VD Switch Design Options 9.4
- Page 379 and 380: # VC Rate VC Input Rate Input Rate
- Page 381 and 382: 8 uses source rate measurement, we
- Page 383 and 384: The allocated rate update and the e
- Page 385: sources in chapter 6. We expect the
- Page 389 and 390: can be very di erent for di erent V
- Page 391 and 392: CHAPTER 10 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES At
- Page 393 and 394: With an enhanced UBR service, appli
- Page 395 and 396: 2. Some switch schemes have a proce
- Page 397 and 398: 4. Large legacy switches have a pro
- Page 399 and 400: section 9. Further, WAN switches wo
- Page 401 and 402: CHAPTER 11 SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK
- Page 403 and 404: good transient performance. Since r
- Page 405 and 406: variant background tra c conditions
- Page 407 and 408: APPENDIX A SOURCE, DESTINATION AND
- Page 409 and 410: 7. After following behaviors #5 and
- Page 411 and 412: set the QL and SN elds to zero, pre
- Page 413 and 414: d) VS/VD Control: The switch may se
- Page 415 and 416: 5. Setting of other parameters at V
- Page 417 and 418: 4. The averaging interval timer exp
- Page 419 and 420: 1. Initialization: Target Cell Rate
- Page 421 and 422: THEN IF (OCR In Cell Fair Share Rat
- Page 423 and 424: APPENDIX C ERICA SWITCH ALGORITHM:
- Page 425 and 426: Number Active VCs In Last Interval
- Page 427 and 428: IF (NOT(Averaging VCs Option)) THEN
- Page 429 and 430: IF (Load Factor = In nity) THEN Loa
- Page 431 and 432: ; (Contribution[VC] = Decay Factor)
- Page 433 and 434: Name Explanation Flow Chart (FC) or
- Page 435 and 436: Figure C.2: Flow Chart for Achievin
con guration mentioned <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> table has two <strong>ABR</strong> VCs shar<strong>in</strong>g a bottleneck (like<strong>the</strong><br />
2 source + VBR con guration, but without <strong>the</strong> VBR VC). One of <strong>the</strong> VCs comes on<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> middle of <strong>the</strong> simulation and rema<strong>in</strong>s active <strong>for</strong> a period of 60 ms be<strong>for</strong>e go<strong>in</strong>g<br />
o .<br />
VS/VD Opt # ! A B C D E F No VS/VD<br />
Con g #<br />
Transient 50 50 65 20 55 25 60<br />
Park<strong>in</strong>g lot 120 100 170 45 125 50 140<br />
Upstream bottleneck 95 75 75 20 95 20 70<br />
Table 9.4: Convergence time <strong>in</strong> ms<br />
Observe that <strong>the</strong> convergence time of VS/VD option D (highlighted) is <strong>the</strong> best.<br />
Recall that this con guration corresponds to measur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> VC rate at <strong>the</strong> entry<br />
to <strong>the</strong> per-class queue, <strong>in</strong>put rate measured at <strong>the</strong> per-class queue, l<strong>in</strong>k congestion<br />
a ect<strong>in</strong>g both <strong>the</strong> next loop and <strong>the</strong> previous loop, <strong>the</strong> allocated rate updated at both<br />
FRM1 and BRM2.<br />
Maximum Transient Queue Length<br />
The maximum transient queues gives a measure of how askew <strong>the</strong> allocations<br />
were when compared to <strong>the</strong> optimal allocation and how soonthiswas corrected. The<br />
maximum transient queues are tabulated <strong>for</strong> various con gurations <strong>for</strong> each VS/VD<br />
option and <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> case without VS/VD <strong>in</strong> Table 9.5.<br />
The table shows that VS/VD option D has very small transient queues <strong>in</strong> all <strong>the</strong><br />
con gurations and <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imum queues <strong>in</strong> a majority of cases. This result, comb<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
360