Journal of Network and Systems Management

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 121–146 | Cite as

RCFT: A Termination Method for Simple PCN-Based Flow Control

Article
  • 145 Downloads

Abstract

Pre-congestion notification (PCN) conveys information about load conditions in differentiated services IP networks to boundary nodes. This information is currently used for admission control and flow termination. Flow termination complements admission control, e.g., in case of failures when admitted traffic is rerouted and causes overload on backup paths. Existing approaches for PCN-based admission control and flow termination operate on ingress-egress aggregates and rely on a signalling protocol that regularly reports measured PCN feedback from all egress nodes to all ingress nodes. However, this signalling protocol is neither defined nor available, and the methods have also other intrinsic shortcomings that result from their operations on ingress-egress aggregates. While there is already a PCN-based admission control method that works without additional signalling of measured PCN feedback, a solid flow termination method with that property is still missing. In this paper we present the novel regular-check-based flow termination method (RCFT). It does not rely on measured PCN feedback, fills the identified gap, and allows for a PCN architecture without signalling of measured feedback. We explain RCFT in detail and investigate its termination behavior under various conditions. Moreover, we study the use of PCN-based flow control for on/off traffic. These results are of general nature and apply to any system using PCN-based flow termination.

Keywords

Quality of service Pre-congestion notification Admission control Flow termination 

References

  1. 1.
    Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., Jamin, S.: RFC2205: Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)—Version 1 Functional Specification (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wroclawski, J.: RFC2211: Specification of the Controlled-Load Network Element Service (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charny, A., Huang, F., Karagiannis, G., Menth, M., Taylor, T.: RFC 6661: PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Controlled Load (CL) Mode of Operation (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menth, M., Lehrieder, F.: Performance of PCN-based admission control under challenging conditions. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 20, 422–435 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Menth, M., Lehrieder, F.: PCN-based measured rate termination. Comput. Netw. 54, 2099–2116 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karagiannis, G., Bhargava, A.: Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations over PCN Domains. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn(2012)
  7. 7.
    Menth, M., Geib, R.: Admission Control Using PCN-Marked Signaling. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-menth-pcn-marked-signaling-ac(2011)
  8. 8.
    Eardley, P. (ed.): RFC5559: Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Architecture (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Briscoe, B., Moncaster, T., Menth, M.: RFC 6660: Encoding 3 PCN-States in the IP Header Using a Single DSCP (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ITU-T Recommendation Y.2111 (2006), Resource and Admission Control Functions in Next Generation Networks (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Menth, M., Briscoe, B., Tsou, T.: Pre-congestion notification (PCN)—new QoS support for differentiated services IP networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 50, 94–103 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eardley , P. (ed.): RFC5670: Metering and Marking Behaviour of PCN Nodes (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kelly, F., Key, P., Zachary, S.: Distributed admission control. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 18, 2617–2628 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karsten, M., Schmitt, J.: Packet marking for integrated load control. In: IFIP/IEEE Symposium on Integrated Management (IM). (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menth, M., Lehrieder, F., Briscoe, B., Eardley, P., Moncaster, T., Babiarz, J., Charny, A., Zhang, X.J., Taylor, T., Chan, K.H., Satoh, D., Geib, R., Karagiannis, G.: A Survey of PCN-Based Admission Control and Flow Termination. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 12 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, X., Charny, A.: Performance evaluation of pre-congestion notification. In: International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS). Enschede, The Netherlands (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Latre, S., De Vleeschauwer, B., Vande Meerssche, W., De Schepper, K., Hublet, C., Van Leekwijck, W., De Turck, F.: PCN based admission control for autonomic video quality differentiation: design and evaluation. J. Netw. Syst. Manage. 19, 32–57 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arumaithurai, M., Geib, R., Rex, R., Fu, X.: Pre-congestion notification-based flow management in MPLS-based diffserv networks. In: IEEE International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC). Phoenix, AZ, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Geib, R., Azanon-Teruel, E., Donaire-Arroyo, S., Ferrandiz-Cancio, A., Ralli-Ucendo, C., Romero-Bueno, F.: Service Deployment Experience in Pre-Commercial IPv6 Networks. UPGRADE 6 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Menth, M., Babiarz, J., Eardley, P.: Pre-congestion notification using packet-specific dual marking. In: International Workshop on the Network of the Future (Future-Net). Dresden, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Briscoe, B.: RFC6040: Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Satoh, D., Ueno, H.: Cause and countermeasure of overtermination for PCN-based flow termination. In: IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC). Riccione, Italy (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Menth, M., Lehrieder, F.: PCN-based marked flow termination. Comput. Commun. 34, 2082–2093 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lehrieder, F., Menth, M.: Marking conversion for pre-congestion notification. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). Dresden, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Charny, A., Zhang, J., Karagiannis, G., Menth, M., Taylor, T.: RFC 6662: PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Single Marking (SM) Mode of Operation (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lehrieder, F., Menth, M.: PCN-based flow termination with multiple bottleneck links. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). Dresden, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Menth, M., Hartmann, M.: Threshold configuration and routing optimization for PCN-based resilient admission control. Comput. Netw. 53, 1771–1783 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    International Telecommunications Union: Clause 3—Multi-Level Precedence and Preemption (MLPP). ITU Recommendation Q.955.3 (1994)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    International Telecommunications Union: Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)—General Structure and Service Capabilities—Multi-Level Precedence and Preemption. ITU Recommendation I.255.3 (1990)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J.: RFC 4412: Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    3GPP: TS 22.067: Enhanced Multi-Level Precedence and Pre-emption Service (eMLPP); Stage 1 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    3GPP: TS 23.067: Enhanced Multi-Level Precedence and Pre-emption Service (eMLPP); Stage 2 (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    3GPP: TS 24.067: Enhanced Multi-Level Precedence and Pre-emption Service (eMLPP); Stage 3 (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kingston, J.: dynamic precedence for military IP networks. In: Military Communications Conference (MILCOM). (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McCann, C., Elmasry, G., Russell, B., Welsh, B.: A Measurement-based approach for multilevel admission of heterogeneous traffic in wireless Ad-Hoc networks. In: Military Communications Conference (MILCOM). Taunton, MA, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fineberg, V.: Specification of the military precedence and preemption in the DS-TE networks. In: Military Communications Conference (MILCOM). DISA, Falls Church, VA, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shan, T., Yang, O.W.W.: Bandwidth management for supporting differentiated-service-aware traffic engineering. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 18, 1320–1331 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    de Oliveira, J.C., Scoglio, C., Akyildiz, I.F., Uhl, G.: New preemption policies for diffserv-aware traffic engineering to minimize rerouting in MPLS networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 12, 733–745 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chaieb I., Le Roux J.L., Cousin B. (2007) A new pre-emption policy for MPLS-TE networks. In: IEEE International Conference on Networks (ICON)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Goldberg, J.B., Dasgupta, S., de Oliveira, J.C.: Bandwidth constraint models: a performance study with preemption on link failures. In: IEEE Globecom. San Francisco, CA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bar-Noy, A., Canetti, R., Kutten, S., Mansour, Y., Schieber, B.: Bandwidth allocation with preemption. SIAM J. Comput. 28, 1806–1828 (1999)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Garay, J.A., Gopal, I.S.: Call preemption in communication networks. In: IEEE Infocom. (1992)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dogar, F.R., Aslam, L., Uzmi, Z.A., Abbasi, S., Kim, Y.C.: Connection preemption in multi-class networks. In: IEEE Globecom. San Francisco, CA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Andersen, S., Duric, A., Astrom, H., Hagen, R., Kleijn, W., Linden, J.: RFC3951: Internet Low Bit Rate Codec (iLBC) (2004)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Menth, M., Binzenhöfer, A., Mühleck, S.: Source models for speech traffic revisited. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 17, 1042–1051 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.University of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations