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 ...
VS/VD Opt # ! A B C D E F No VS/VD Con g # 2 Source + VBR 1.2 1.4 2.7 1.8 2.7 1.8 2.7 Transient 1.4 1.1 1.4 0.025 1.3 1.0 6.0 Parking lot 1.9 1.9 1.4 0.3 3.7 0.35 2.0 Upstream bottleneck 0.025 0.08 0.3 0.005 1.3 0.005 0.19 Table 9.5: Maximum queue length in Kcells with the fastest response and near-maximum throughput behavior con rms the choice of option D as the best VS/VD implementation. Observe that the queues for the VS/VD implementations are in general lesser than or equal to the queues for the case without VS/VD. However, the queues reduce much more if the correct implementation (like option D) is chosen. 9.6 Conclusions In summary: VS/VD is an option that can be added to switches which implement per-VC queueing. The addition can potentially yield improved performance in terms of response time, convergence time, and smaller queues. This is especially useful for switches at the edge of satellite networks or switches that are attached to links with large delay-bandwidth product. The fast response and convergence times also help support bursty tra c like datamore e ciently. The e ect of VS/VD depends upon the switch algorithm used and how it is implemented in the VS/VD switch. The convergence time and transient queues 361
can be very di erent for di erent VS/VD implementations of the same basic switch algorithm. In such cases the fast response of VS/VD is harmful. With VS/VD, ACR and actual rates are very di erent. The switch cannot rely on the RM cell CCR eld. We recommend that the VS/VD switch and in general, switches implementing per-VC queueing measure the VC's current rate. The sum of the input rates to per-VC VS queues is not the same as the input rate to the link. It is best to measure the VC's rate at the output of the VS and the input rate at the entry to the per-class queue. On detecting link congestion, the congestion information should be forwarded to the previous loop as well as the next loop. This method reduces the convergence time by reducing the number of iterations required in the switch algorithms on the current and downstream switches. It is best for the the rate allocated to a VC to be calculated both when turning around FRMs at the VD as well as after receiving BRMs at the next VS. We have shown that the VS/VD provision in the ABR tra c management frame- work can potentially improve performance of bursty tra c and reduce the bu er requirements in switches. The VS/VD mechanism achieves this by breaking up a large ABR loop into smaller ABR loops which are separately controlled. However, further study is required in the following areas: E ect of VS/VD on bu er requirements in the switch. Scheduling issues with VS/VD. 362
- 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 and 386: sources in chapter 6. We expect the
- Page 387: con guration mentioned in the table
- 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
- Page 437 and 438: Figure C.4: Flow Chart of averaging
VS/VD Opt # ! A B C D E F No VS/VD<br />
Con g #<br />
2 Source + VBR 1.2 1.4 2.7 1.8 2.7 1.8 2.7<br />
Transient 1.4 1.1 1.4 0.025 1.3 1.0 6.0<br />
Park<strong>in</strong>g lot 1.9 1.9 1.4 0.3 3.7 0.35 2.0<br />
Upstream bottleneck 0.025 0.08 0.3 0.005 1.3 0.005 0.19<br />
Table 9.5: Maximum queue length <strong>in</strong> Kcells<br />
with <strong>the</strong> fastest response and near-maximum throughput behavior con rms <strong>the</strong> choice<br />
of option D as <strong>the</strong> best VS/VD implementation.<br />
Observe that <strong>the</strong> queues <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> VS/VD implementations are <strong>in</strong> general lesser<br />
than or equal to <strong>the</strong> queues <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> case without VS/VD. However, <strong>the</strong> queues reduce<br />
much more if <strong>the</strong> correct implementation (like option D) is chosen.<br />
9.6 Conclusions<br />
In summary:<br />
VS/VD is an option that can be added to switches which implement per-VC<br />
queue<strong>in</strong>g. The addition can potentially yield improved per<strong>for</strong>mance <strong>in</strong> terms of<br />
response time, convergence time, and smaller queues. This is especially useful<br />
<strong>for</strong> switches at <strong>the</strong> edge of satellite networks or switches that are attached to<br />
l<strong>in</strong>ks with large delay-bandwidth product. The fast response and convergence<br />
times also help support bursty tra c like datamore e ciently.<br />
The e ect of VS/VD depends upon <strong>the</strong> switch algorithm used and how it is<br />
implemented <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> VS/VD switch. The convergence time and transient queues<br />
361