Explicit Allocaion of BestEffort Service尽力而为的服务的显式配置.pptVIP

Explicit Allocation of Best-Effort Service Other Alternatives Priority scheduling - does not have a mechanism for weighted service Weighted Fair Queueing - may not scale at core routers with hundreds or thousands of flows Tagging packets as in or out, and treat them differently - similar to CLP bit in ATM Allocated-Capacity Framework Define a service allocation profile for each user Routers favor traffic that is within those service profiles Tag packets as “in” or “out” A congested router preferentially drop “out” packets Packets from all users are aggregated into one FCFS queue Different users with different profiles will have different numbers of “in” packets in the queue Routers implement dropping scheme - don’t have to worry about packet re-ordering (and associated overhead or jitter) since FCFS is used Profile Meters at the edge implement tagging Design Issues Policy meters at source side of network boundary Checking meters at receiver side of network boundary Profile meters toward the core only need to look at large aggregates Decoupling of differential dropping inside the network and service allocation profiles at the edge Only need to create a profile meter to adopt a new service Different service models: - dedicated rate for a source-destination pair - aggregated commitment to a range of destinations or anywhere (PVN). In this case, enough resources have to be provisioned to support all users sending “in” traffic simultaneously to any destination - Becomes challenging for sources that are bursty or with rate fluctuations (like TCP) to which the profile must conform More Design Issues A range of service assurance should be provided A higher assurance service will cost more Statistically provisioned service allocation profiles do not describe a strict guarantee Different users should be allowed to have different expectations It is not necessary to separate out each individual flow, e.g., use a couple of queues for different l