QoS Guarantees.ppt

QoS Guarantees introduction call admission traffic specification link-level scheduling call setup protocol reading: Tannenbaum, 393-395, 458-471 Ch 6 in Ross/Kurose Motivation Certain applications require minimum level of network performance: Internet telephone, teleconferencing: delays 500ms impair human interaction session guaranteed QoS or is blocked (denied admission to network) starting to look like telephone net! Fundamental mismatch between QoS and packet switching packet switching: statistically share resources in hope that sessions peak demands dont coincide 100% certain guarantees require accounting for worst case behavior (no matter how unlikely) admitting/denying session on worst case demands equivalent to circuit switching! Internet service classes Current service model: best-effort send packet and hope performance is OK Next generation Internet service classes: guaranteed service: provides firm (mathematically provable) bounds on end-to-end datagram queuing delays. This service makes it possible to provide a service that guarantees both delay and bandwidth. controlled load: a QoS closely approximating the QoS that same flow would receive from an unloaded network element, but uses capacity (admission) control to assure that this service is received even when the network element is overloaded. best effort: current service model ATM service classes ATM service classes: CBR: constant bit rate, guaranteed bandwidth, constant end-end delay ABR: guaranteed minimum cell rate (bandwidth), more possible if available (congestion control via RM cells) UBR: unspecified bit rate, no congestion control Comparing Internet and ATM service classes: how are guaranteed service and CBR alike/different? how are controlled load and ABR alike/different? Radical changes required! Question: what new concepts, mechanisms needed to insure that packets from source see a given QoS? The call admission problem Networ