Upload
osborn-nelson
View
227
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Redes Inalámbricas Máster Ingeniería de Computadores 2008/2009Redes Inalámbricas Máster Ingeniería de Computadores 2008/2009
Tema 5.- Redes inalámbricas Ad Hoc. Quality of Service (QoS)Tema 5.- Redes inalámbricas Ad Hoc. Quality of Service (QoS)
IntroducciónQoS in IP based NetworksQoS in MANETs Propuestas del Grupo GRC
Arquitectura DACME
QoS in MANETsQoS in MANETs
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
2
Introduction
The evolution of the Multimedia Technology and the Commercial Interest of Companies to reach civilian applications have made QoS in MANETs an unavoidable task.
QoS and Overhead are synonyms !. The idea of providing QoS in MANETs is not to extinct Overhead but to keep it as low as possible.
MANETs : 3 new problems! Dynamic Topology. Bandwidth Constrains. Limited Processing & Storing capabilities of Devices.
What happens with QoS in Wire-based Networks?. Can we port ideas / protocols to MANETs?
A Glance At QoS in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks: http:/www.cs.ucr.edu/~csyiazti/cs260.html
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
3
The QoS Metrics
How do we measure the QoS ? Some mostly used QoS attributes
Available Bandwidth Probability of packet loss Delay variance (jitter, unpredictable delay) end-to-end delay (Accumulation of jitter along the path) Power consumption or battery charge Service coverage area
QoS Metrics can be defined in terms of one of the parameters or a set of parameters in varied proportions
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
4
QoS Definition
QoS definition “The collective effect of service performance which
determines the degree of satisfaction of a user of a service”.
The United Nations Consultative Committee for International Telephony and Telegraph (CCITT) Recommendation E.800
Video frame without QoS Support Video frame with QoS Support
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
5
Principles for QOS Guarantees (I)
Consider a phone application at 1Mbps and an FTP application sharing a 1.5 Mbps link. Bursts of FTP can congest the router and cause audio packets to be
dropped. Want to give priority to audio over FTP.
PRINCIPLE 1: Marking of packets is needed for router to distinguish between different classes; and new router policy to treat packets accordingly.
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
6
Principles for QOS Guarantees (II)
PRINCIPLE 2: provide protection (isolation) for one class from other classes. Applications misbehave (audio sends packets at a rate higher than
1Mbps assumed above). Require Policing Mechanisms to ensure sources adhere to bandwidth
requirements; Marking and Policing need to be done at the edges:
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
7
Principles for QOS Guarantees (III)
PRINCIPLE 3: While providing isolation, it is desirable to use resources as efficiently as possible.
Alternative to Marking and Policing: allocate a set portion of bandwidth to each application flow; can lead to inefficient use of bandwidth if one of the flows does not use its allocation.
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
8
Principles for QOS Guarantees (IV)
PRINCIPLE 4: Need a Call Admission Process; application flow declares its needs, network may block call if it cannot satisfy the needs . Remember: Cannot support traffic beyond link capacity
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
9
QoS in IP Based Networks
How is QoS achieved? “Over Provisioning”. Add plentiful capacity to the network.
Easy! (e.g. upgrade from 10Mb to 100Mb) Can be done gradually. But we remain at 1 service class (best effort) again.
“Network Traffic Engineering”. Make the Network more sophisticated! (e.g. Traffic Classes, Connection Admission Control, Policy Managers,…)
Reservation-based Engineering. (e.g. RSVP/IntServ, ATM) Reservation-less Engineering. (e.g. DiffServ)
– Used in today’s Differentiated Services» IPv4 TOS octect» IPv6 traffic Class octect
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
10
Integrated Services
Attempt to modify Internet service model to support diverse application requirements
Any data flow that desires better than best-effort delivery requests and reserves resources at routers along the path RSVP is the recommended reservation protocol
If insufficient resources are available, the flow is denied admission into the network
Each router Maintains reservation state for each flow Classifies every packet and decides forwarding behavior Monitors the flow to ensure that it does not consume more than the
reserved resources Advantages
Enables fine-grained QoS and resource guarantees Disadvantages
Not scalable, harder to administer
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
11
Service Interface & Call Admission
Session must first declare its QoS requirement and characterize the traffic it will send through the network
R-spec: defines the QoS being requested by receiver (e.g., rate r)
T-spec: defines the traffic characteristics of sender (e.g., leaky bucket with rate r and buffer size b).
A signaling protocol is needed to carry the R-spec and T-spec to the routers where reservation is required; RSVP is a leading candidate for such signaling protocol.
Call Admission: routers will admit calls based on their R-spec and T-spec and base on the current resource allocated at the routers to other calls.
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
12
Differentiated Services
Moves admission control and flow monitoring to the edge of the network
Edge nodes classify and mark packets to receive a particular type of service Diff Serv Code Point (DSCP)
Packet is marked in the Type of Service (TOS) in IPv4, and Traffic Class in IPv6.
Finite set of DSCPs defined
Interior nodes determine the type of service for forwarded packets based on their DSCP values
Advantages More scalable No per-flow state Easier to administer
BIG ADVANTAGE: No state info to be maintained by routers!
Disadvantages Cannot provide the same per-flow guarantees as IntServ
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
13
Edge Router/Host Functions
Classification: marks packets according to classification rules to be specified.
Metering: checks whether the traffic falls within the negotiated profile.
Marking: marks traffic that falls within profile. Conditioning: delays and then forwards, discards, or
remarks other traffic.
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
14
QoS in MANETs
A lot of work has been done in supporting QoS in the Internet, but unfortunately none of them can be directly used in MANETs because of the bandwidth constraints and dynamic network topology of MANETs.
To support QoS, the link state information such as delay, bandwidth, cost, loss rate, and error rate in the network should be available and manageable.
However, getting and managing the link state information in MANETs is very difficult because the quality of a wireless link is apt to change with the surrounding circumstances.
The resource limitations and the mobility of hosts make things more complicated.
Hard QoS guarantee is not possible in MANETs Adaptive QoS Service Differentiation
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
15
Why QoS is Hard in Mobile Ad Hoc Network?
Dynamic Network Topology Flow stop receiving QoS provisions due to path disconnections New paths must be established, causing data loss and delays
Imprecise state information Link state changes continuously Flow states change over time
No central control for coordination Error-Probe shared medium Hidden terminal problem Limited resources availability
Bandwidth, battery Life, Storage, processing capabilities Insecure medium
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
16
Effects of congestion and mobility: PSNR
Video at 10Hz 200 seconds interval
Bursty losses
Several consecutive frames lost (video freezed)
Random losses
More uniform distortion decay
degradation due to mobility
degradation due to congestion
PSNR: The phrase peak signal-to-noise ratio, often abbreviated PSNR, is an engineering term for the ratio between the maximum possible power of a signal and the power of corrupting noise that affects the fidelity of its representation.
The PSNR is most commonly used as a measure of quality of reconstruction in image compression
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
17
Effects of congestion and mobility: jitter
Congestion jitter:
relatively small
frequent variations
Mobility jitter:
very large peaks
occasional occurrences on route change
jitter is an abrupt and unwanted variation of one or more signal characteristics
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
18
Main issues
The main issues to consider to achieve good quality are: MAC level QoS: IEEE 802.11e required to differentiate
from bandwidth greedy best-effort traffic Admission control: to avoid more connections than the
MANET can handle Increase routing effectiveness: even by using layer-2
aware routing protocols such as AODV or DSR, video transmission gaps are still too large to be handled by a video codec
For video streaming Also H.264 codec tuning:
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
19
QoS in MANETs
The first QoS Model proposed in 2000 for MANETs FQMM (Flexible QoS Model for Manet QoS Signalling)
QoS Signalling INSIGNIA (in-band signalling) dRSVP(dynamic RSVP)
QoS Routing QoS enabled routing (AODV/OLSR) CEDAR(Core-Extraction Distributed Ad-hoc Routing) Ticket based Probing (distributed QoS routing)
QoS MAC IEEE 802.11e MACA/PR
(Multiple Access Collision Avoidance with Piggyback Reservation)
prioritised binary countdown (PBC) ... and
SWAN: integrated proposalMona Ghassemian, King’s College, September 2003
QoS in MANETsQoS in MANETs
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
20
FQMM
FQMM is the first QoS Model proposed in 2000 for MANETs by Xiao et al.
The model can be characterized as a “hybrid” IntServ/DiffServ Model as the highest priority is assigned per-flow provisioning. the rest is assigned per-class provisioning.
Three types of nodes: Ingress (transmit) Core (forward) Egress (receive)
The role of each nodechange according to thenode mobility
Only works with TCP traffic
1
2
5
3
4
6 7
ingress
egress
core
Mona Ghassemian, King’s College, September 2003
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
21
QoS Signalling Terminology
Signaling is used to reserve and release resources.
Prerequisites of QoS Signalling Reliable transfer of signals between routers Correct Interpretation and activation of the appropriate mechanisms
to handle the signal. It means that signaling must be understandable and implemented by the rest
of the nodes
Signaling can be divided into “In-band” and “Out-of-band” In-band: integrated in data packets Out-of-band: explicit use of control packets. Performance?
This packets should have higher priority RSVP is an example of out-of-band signaling
– Is the facto signaling protocol for IntServ
Most papers support that “In-band” Signaling is more appropriate for MANETs.
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
22
In-band VS Out-of Band Signaling
In-band Signaling, network control information is encapsulated in data packets Lightweight Not Flexible for defining new Service Classes.
Out-of-band Signaling, network control information is carried in separate packets using explicit control packets. Heavyweight signaling packets must have higher priority to achieve on time notification
=> can lead to complex systems.+ Scalability. Signal packets don’t rely on data packets+ We can have rich set of services, since we don’t need to “steal“ bits from
data packets
Source Address
Destination Address
TTL Header CheckSum
Fragment Offset
Total Length
Options Padding
Identification
Protocol
Flags
Version Hdr Len Prec TOS
32 bits
(Shaded fields are absent from IPv6 header)
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
23
INSIGNIA
INSIGNIA is the first signaling protocol designed solely for MANETs by Ahn et al. 1998. Lee, S.B., Ahn, G.S., Campbell, A.T., "Improving UDP and TCP
Performance in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks with INSIGNIA", June 2001, IEEE Communication Magazine.
Can be characterized as an “In-band RSVP” protocol. It encapsulates control info in the IP Option field (called now INSIGNIA
Option field). (IN-BAND) It keeps flow state for the real time (RT) flows. (RSVP) It is “Soft State”. The argument is that assurance that resources are
released is more important than overhead that anyway exists. (RSVP) INSIGNA tries to provide something better than best effort
service for some flows, e.g., video, voice. QoS insensitive flows can be serviced in best effort manner: e-mail QoS sensitive flows should be treated in better than best effort
manner
Mona Ghassemian, King’s College, September 2003
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
24
INSIGNIA Review
INSIGNIA is just the signaling protocol of a complete QoS Architecture. To realize a complete QoS Architecture we also need many
other components A Routing Protocol (e.g. DSR, AODV, TORA) to track changes of routes An Admission Control Module to allocate requests according to the
requested resources A Packet Scheduling Module A Medium Access Controller Module
INSIGNIA Drawbacks. Only 2 classes of services (RT) and (BE). Flow state information must be kept in mobile hosts. Georgiadis, Jacquet, and Mans proved that bandwidth
reservation on ad-hoc networks is an np-hard problem [1]
[1] “Bandwidth Reservation in Multihop Wireless Networks: Complexity and Mechanisms”. ICDCSW'04, Hachioji - Tokyo, Japan, March 2004.
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
25
QoS in MANETs, an Integrated Vision
QoS Routing QoS enabled routing (AODV/OLSR) CEDAR(Core-Extraction Distributed Ad-hoc Routing) Ticket based Probing (distributed QoS routing) Predictive Location-Based QoS Routing Protocol Bandwidth Routing Protocol Trigger-Based Distributed QoS Routing Protocol On-Demand QoS Routing Protocol QoS-Enabled Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing
Protocol On-Demand Link-state Multipath QoS Routing Protocol Asynchronous Slot Allocation Strategies …
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
26
QoS Routing
Routing is an essential component for QoS. It can inform a source node of the bandwidth and QoS availability of a destination node
We know that AODV is a successful an on-demand routing protocol based on the ideas of both DSDV and DSR.
We also know that when a node in AODV desires to send a message to some destination node it initiates a Route Discovery Process (RREQ).
Mona Ghassemian, King’s College, September 2003
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
27
QoS for AODV
QoS for AODV was proposed in 2000 by C. Perkins and E. Royer.
The main idea of making AODV QoS enabled is to add extensions to the route messages (RREQ, RREP).
A node that receives a RREQ + QoS Extension must be able to meet the service requirement in order to rebroadcast the RREQ (if not in cache).
In order to handle the QoS extensions some changes need to be on the routing tables
AODV current fields. Destination Sequence Number, Interface, Hop Count, Next Hop, List of Precursors
AODV new fields. (4 new fields)1. Maximum Delay, 2. Minimum Available Bandwidth, 3. List of Sources Requesting Delay Guarantees and 4. List of Sources Requesting Bandwidth Guarantees
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
28
QoS-Extensions of AODV: Basic Idea
QoS information is added to the RREQ packet
Intermediate nodes forward the RREQ only if they have sufficient resources to meet the QoS requirement
Resource information is updated in the RREQ by intermediate nodes
Destination sends resource information back to source in the RREP message
S D
RREQ
RREP
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
29
QoS for AODV - Delay
Handling Delay with the Maximum Delay extension and the List of Sources Requesting Delay Guarantees. RREQ includes delay Each node has its NODE_TRANSVERSAL_TIME
Example shows how the with the Maximum Delay extension and the List of Sources Requesting Delay Guarantees are utilized during route discovery process.
cachedelay(C->D)=50 =TraversalTime
+ delay
RREQ2delay=10ingress
Acore C
Traversal_time= 5 0
core BTraversal_time= 3 0
RREQ1delay=100
egressD
RREQ1delay=70
RREQ1delay=20
RREP1delay=0
cachedelay(B->D)=80
RREP1delay=50
RREP1delay=80
1
2
x
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
30
QoS for AODV - Bandwidth
Handling Bandwidth is similar to handling Delay requests. Actually a RREQ can include both types.
Example shows how the with the Minimum Available Bandwidth extension and the List of Sources Requesting Bandwidth Guarantees are utilized during route discovery process.
RREQ2minband=80K
cacheband(C->D)=50
ingressA
core CAvailable_Bandwidth
= 50K
core BAvailable_Bandwidth
= 100K
egressD
RREP1bandwidth=INF
cacheband(B->D)=50
RREP1bandwidth=50
2x
RREQ1min_bandwidth=10Kbps
RREQ1min_bandwidth=10Kbps
RREQ1min_bandwidth=10Kbps
RREP1bandwidth=50
min{INF,50}
1
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
31
QoS for AODV - Loosing QoS
cachedelay(C->D)=50
ingressA
core CTraversal_time= 5 0
core BTraversal_time= 3 0
egressD
cachedelay(B->D)=80
cachedelay(B->D)=80
QOS_LOSTQOS_LOST
Loosing Quality of Service Parametersif after establishment a node detects that the QoS can’t be maintained any more it originates a ICMP QOS_LOST message, to all depending nodes.== > Reason why we keep a List of Sources Requesting Delay/Bandwidth Guarantees.
Reasons for loosing QoS Parameters. Increased Load of a node. Why would a node take over more jobs that it can handle?
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
32
QoS in MANETs, an Integrated Vision
QoS MAC IEEE 802.11e Cluster TDMA MACA/PR. (Multiple Access Collision Avoidance with Piggyback
Reservation)
Prioritised binary countdown (PBC) …
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
33
... andSWAN: integrated proposal
Stateless Wireless Ad-hoc Networks intermediate nodes don’t keep per-flow or aggregate
state information differentiate real-time and best-effort traffic QoS-capable MAC not needed AIMD algorithm (+ * - like TCP window) Uses feedback information (ECN – explicit
congestion notification)
Principles: Rate control: per-hop MAC delay measurements Source-based admission control implemented in ns-2 and Linux/AODV
http://comet.ctr.columbia.edu/swan/
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
34
Propuestas del Grupo GRC: Arquitectura DACME
Previous proposals have strong requirements: All terminals must be equipped with the same software and similar
hardware All terminals must perform QoS related tasks If some of the terminals do not offer QoS support, the whole QoS
framework fails or there is severe malfunctioning
None of the previous proposals has taken into consideration that: The bandwidth reservation process is NP-hard QoS at the MAC layer is fundamental Multipath routing algorithms can offer important benefits The MANET paradigm is based on user cooperation, but in most cases
we can not force users to cooperate
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
35
Propuestas del Grupo GRC: Arquitectura DACME
Propuestas del Grupo GRC Arquitectura DACME
IP
IEEE 802.11e
IEEE 802.11g
MDSR
DAC
ME
TCP/UDP
Distributed admission control
Prioritized channel access
Multipath routing algorithm [1]
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
36
DACME - Requirements
Only two:
All stations that have IEEE 802.11e interfaces should map the IP packet's TOS to a MAC-level Access Category (basic requirement to achieve good performance)
Sources and destinations of QoS traffic should implement DACME (Distributed Admission Control for MANET Environments)
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
37
DACME - Admission control
DACME makes periodic end-to-end network measurements using probes
Intermediate stations are not aware of DACME's tasks DACME uses UDP/IP
Decisions on whether to admit, maintain or drop a QoS flow are based on DACME's periodic measurements and the QoS requirements of each specific flow
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
38
DACME architecture
1. The application registers with DACME, indicating the source and destination port, the destination's IP address and the QoS requirements
2. DACME periodically sends probes to assess available bandwidth on the path
3. The port state is set to up or down according to current network conditions
4. The packet filter module is responsible for enforcing accept/reject decisions, and also for changing the packet's TOS field if accepted
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
39
End-to-end bandwidth estimation
Is based on measurements made every 3 seconds (±0.5 s of jitter)
each probe consists of 10 back-to-back packets with the same TOS/AC as the application's packets to avoid the stolen bandwidth problem (Breslau et al., SIGCOMM 2000)
...
Δt→0
Δtrec
Source Destination
Probe reply
X
1
2
n
timeout
Probe
.....
Adjustment of these values at the source (over-estimation)
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
40
Performance evaluation
General simulation setup: ns-2 discrete event simulator Radio interfaces are IEEE 802.11g/e enabled Scenarios are sized 1900x400 m2 and composed by 50
nodes Radio range is of 250 meters (4 hops between nodes on
average) Nodes move according to the random way-point model at
a constant speed of 5 m/s Comparison between DSR & MDSR routing protocols Simulation time is of 300 seconds for each experiment DACME source/destination pairs have a DACME agent
attached
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
41
Traffic
4 Video sources and 3 Voice sources regulated by DACME Video sources generate CBR traffic at 1 Mbit/s in the Video AC Voice sources:
VoIP streams simulated using a Pareto On/Off distribution both burst and idle time set to 500 ms shaping factor used is 1.5, average data rate is of 100 kbit/s
Sources are turned off in the same order they were turned on 4 background traffic sources
Traffic is negative-exponentially distributed Variable traffic loads; load share per AC is: 50% to the Video AC, 25%
to Best-effort AC, 25% to Background AC These sources are active all the time
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
42
Performance in terms of throughput/losses
On average the throughput of DACME-regulated sources is much more stable (always close to the source data rate of 1 Mbit/s)
Voice sources do not generate constant data-rate traffic In terms of packet losses we achieve very significant
improvements
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
43
Performance in terms of end-to-end delay
In terms of average end-to-end delay, DACME allows achieving much lower values than its non-DACME counterpart
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
44
Routing overhead and traffic acceptance rate
In terms of routing overhead, DACME reduces it by avoiding routing collapse situations
In terms of traffic acceptance rate: high data-rate sources (video) are more penalized
Red
es I
nalá
mb
ricas
M
IC
20
08/2
009
45
Conclusions and future work
We introduced a new paradigm of QoS architecture for MANETs based on distributed admission control that is able to adapt to the different constrains of MANET environments
Simulation results show that DACME: Improves the support of multimedia applications by achieving more
stable throughput, fewer packet losses and reduced end-to-end delay Does not misbehave when combined with a multipath routing
protocol (MDSR) Promotes routing stability and efficient usage of the radio channel
In the future we plan to develop a version of DACME for the Linux operating system to deploy an IEEE 802.11e-based real-life testbed In linux system DACME can be implemented using Iptables