OPNET Full Presentation

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment
Session 1813
Traffic Behavior and
Queuing in a QoS Environment
Networking Tutorials
Prof. Dimitri P. Bertsekas

Department of Electrical Engineering
M.I.T.
Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 1

Objectives
• Provide some basic understanding of queuing phenomena
• Explain the available solution approaches and associated
trade-offs
• Give guidelines on how to match applications and solutions

Outline
• Basic concepts
• Source models
• Service models (demo)
• Single-queue systems
• Priority/shared service systems
• Networks of queues
• Hybrid simulation (demo)

Outline
• Basic concepts
– Performance measures
– Solution methodologies
– Queuing system concepts
– Stability and steady-state
– Causes of delay and bottlenecks
• Source models

Performance Measures
• Delay
• Delay variation (jitter)
• Packet loss
• Efficient sharing of bandwidth
• Relative importance depends on traffic type (audio/video,
file transfer, interactive)
• Challenge: Provide adequate performance for (possibly)
heterogeneous traffic

Solution Methodologies
• Analytical results (formulas)
– Pros: Quick answers, insight
– Cons: Often inaccurate or inapplicable
• Explicit simulation
– Pros: Accurate and realistic models, broad applicability
– Cons: Can be slow
• Hybrid simulation
– Intermediate solution approach
– Combines advantages and disadvantages of analysis and simulation

Examples of Applications
Analytical Modeling Discrete-Event Simulation
Hybrid DES
M/G/./. & M/G/./. & Decomposition
Analysis Scenarios with Explicit
G/G/./. G/G/./. with Kleinrock DES only with
and
FIFO Priority Independence Explicit Traffic
Background
Analysis Analysis Assumption
Traffic
Single Link with FIFO Service
Best Effort Service for Standard Data Traffic Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Best Effort Service for LRD/Self-Similar

Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Behavior Traffic
"Chancing It" with Best Effort Service for
Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Voice, Video and Data
Single Link with QoS-Based Queueing
Using QoS to differentiate service levels for Yes (loss of
N/A N/A Yes Yes
the same type of traffic accuracy)
Using QoS to support different requirements
for different application types given as a Highly
N/A N/A Yes Yes
detailed study of setting Cisco Router approximate
queueing parameters
Network of Queues
Hop-by-hop Yes (some loss of Yes (Run time a Yes [Fast with
General network model extending the
N/A Analysis (loss accuracy - e.g., traffic function of network minimal loss of
previous QoS queueing model
of accuacy) shaping) complexity) accuracy]
Hop-by-hop Yes (Run time a Yes [Fast with

Reduction of the general model to a
N/A Analysis (loss N/A function of network minimal loss of
representative end-to-end path
of accuacy) complexity) accuracy]

Queuing System Concepts:

Arrival Rate, Occupancy, Time in the System
• Queuing system
– Data network where packets arrive, wait in various queues, receive
service at various points, and exit after some time
• Arrival rate
– Long-term number of arrivals per unit time
• Occupancy
– Number of packets in the system (averaged over a long time)
• Time in the system (delay)
– Time from packet entry to exit (averaged over many packets)

Stability and Steady-State

• A single queue system is stable if
packet arrival rate < system transmission capacity
• For a single queue, the ratio
packet arrival rate / system transmission capacity
is called the utilization factor
– Describes the loading of a queue
• In an unstable system packets accumulate in various queues
and/or get dropped
• For unstable systems with large buffers some packet delays
become very large
– Flow/admission control may be used to limit the packet arrival rate
– Prioritization of flows keeps delays bounded for the important traffic
• Stable systems with time-stationary arrival traffic approach a
steady-state
Little’s Law
• For a given arrival rate, the time in the system is proportional
to packet occupancy
N=T
where
N: average # of packets in the system
: packet arrival rate (packets per unit time)
T: average delay (time in the system) per packet
• Examples:
– On rainy days, streets and highways are more crowded
– Fast food restaurants need a smaller dining room than regular
restaurants with the same customer arrival rate
– Large buffering together with large arrival rate cause large delays

Explanation of Little’s Law

• Amusement park analogy: people arrive, spend time at
various sites, and leave
• They pay $1 per unit time in the park
• The rate at which the park earns is $N per unit time (N:
average # of people in the park)
• The rate at which people pay is $T per unit time (: traffic
arrival rate, T: time per person)
• Over a long horizon:
Rate of park earnings = Rate of people’s payment
or
N = T

Delay is Caused by Packet Interference

• If arrivals are regular or sufficiently spaced apart, no queuing
delay occurs
Time
Arrival Times
Departure
2
4
3
1
Times
Regular Traffic
Time
Arrival Times
Departure
2
4
3
1
Times
Irregular but
Spaced Apart Traffic

Burstiness Causes Interference

• Note that the departures are less bursty
Bursty Traffic
Queuing
1234Time
Delays

Burstiness Example
Different Burstiness Levels at Same Packet Rate
Source: Fei Xue and S. J. Ben Yoo, UCDavis, “On the Generation and Shaping Self-similar Traffic in Optical Packet-switched Networks”, OPNETWORK 2002
Packet Length Variation Causes Interference
Queuing Delays
Time
Regular arrivals, irregular packet lengths

High Utilization Exacerbates Interference
Queuing Delays
Time
As the work arrival rate:

(packet arrival rate * packet length)
increases, the opportunity for interference increases

Bottlenecks
• Types of bottlenecks
– At access points (flow control, prioritization, QoS enforcement needed)
– At points within the network core
– Isolated (can be analyzed in isolation)
– Interrelated (network or chain analysis needed)
• Bottlenecks result from overloads caused by:
– High load sessions, or
– Convergence of sufficient number of moderate load sessions at the
same queue

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping
Time
• The departure traffic from a bottleneck is more regular than the

arrival traffic
• The inter-departure time between two packets is at least as
large as the transmission time of the 2nd packet

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping
Incoming traffic Outgoing traffic
Exponential
inter-arrivals
gap
Bottleneck
90% utilization

Incoming traffic Outgoing traffic
Small
Medium
Bottleneck
90% utilization
Large

Packet Trains
Inter-departure times for small packets

Variable packet sizes
Histogram of inter-departure times for small packets
# of packets
Variable packet sizes
Peaks smeared
Constant packet sizes
sec

Outline
• Basic concepts
• Source models
– Poisson traffic
– Batch arrivals
– Example applications – voice, video, file transfer

Poisson Process with Rate 
• Interarrival times are independent and

exponentially distributed
• Models well the accumulated traffic of many
independent sources
• The average interarrival time is 1/
(secs/packet), so  is the arrival rate
(packets/sec)
Interarrival
Time Times

Batch Arrivals
• Some sources transmit in packet bursts
• May be better modeled by a batch arrival process (e.g., bursts
of packets arriving according to a Poisson process)
• The case for a batch model is weaker at queues after the first,
because of shaping
Interarrival
Time Times

Markov Modulated Rate Process (MMRP)
State 0 State 1
OFF ON
Stay in each state an exponentially

distributed time,
Transmit according to different model
(e.g., Poisson, deterministic, etc) at each state
• Extension: Models with more than two states

Source Types
• Voice sources
• Video sources
• File transfers
• Web traffic
• Interactive traffic
• Different application types have different QoS requirements,
e.g., delay, jitter, loss, throughput, etc.

Source Type Properties
Characteristics QoS Model

Requirements
Voice * Alternating talk- Delay < ~150 ms * Two-state (on-off) Markov
spurts and silence Jitter < ~30 ms Modulated Rate Process (MMRP)
intervals. Packet loss < ~1% * Exponentially distributed time at
* Talk-spurts produce each state
constant packet-rate
traffic
Video * Highly bursty traffic Delay < ~ 400 ms K-state (on-off) Markov Modulated
(when encoded) Jitter < ~ 30 ms Rate Process (MMRP)
* Long range Packet loss < ~1%
dependencies
Interactive * Poisson type Zero or near-sero Poisson, Poisson with batch arrivals,
* Sometimes batch- packet loss Two-state MMRP
FTP
Delay may be
telnet arrivals, or bursty,
important
web or sometimes on-off

Typical Voice Source Behavior

MPEG1 Video Source Model

• The MPEG1 MMRP model can be extremely bursty, and has
“long range dependency” behavior due to the deterministic
frame sequence
Diagram Source: Mark W. Garrett and Walter Willinger, “Analysis, Modeling, and Generation of Self-Similar VBR Video Traffic, BELLCORE, 1994
Outline
• Basic concepts
• Source models
• Service models
– Single vs. multiple-servers
– FIFO, priority, and shared servers
– Demo

Device Queuing Mechanisms

• Common queue examples for IP routers
– FIFO: First In First Out
– PQ: Priority Queuing
– WFQ: Weighted Fair Queuing
– Combinations of the above
• Service types from a queuing theory standpoint
– Single server (one queue - one transmission line)
– Multiple server (one queue - several transmission lines)
– Priority server (several queues with hard priorities - one transmission
line)
– Shared server (several queues with soft priorities - one transmission
line)

Single Server FIFO

• Single transmission line serving packets on a FIFO (First-In-
First-Out) basis
• Each packet must wait for all packets found in the system to
complete transmission, before starting transmission
– Departure Time = Arrival Time + Workload Found in the System +
Transmission time
• Packets arriving to a full buffer are dropped
Arrivals
Transmission
Line

FIFO Queue
• Packets are placed on outbound link to egress device in FIFO order
– Device (router, switch) multiplexes different flows arriving on various ingress
ports onto an output buffer forming a FIFO queue

Multiple Servers
• Multiple packets are transmitted simultaneously on multiple
lines/servers
• Head of the line service: packets wait in a FIFO queue, and
when a server becomes free, the first packet goes into service
Arrivals
Transmission
Lines

Priority Servers
• Packets form priority classes (each may have several flows)
• There is a separate FIFO queue for each priority class
• Packets of lower priority start transmission only if no higher
priority packet is waiting
• Priority types:
– Non-preemptive (high priority packet must wait for a lower priority
packet found under transmission upon arrival)
– Preemptive (high priority packet does not have to wait …)
Transmission
Class
Class
Class123Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Interm.
High
Low
Line
Priority
Priority
Priority

Priority Queuing
• Packets are classified into separate queues
– E.g., based on source/destination IP address, source/destination TCP port, etc.
• All packets in a higher priority queue are served before a lower priority
queue is served
– Typically in routers, if a higher priority packet arrives while a lower priority
packet is being transmitted, it waits until the lower priority packet completes

Shared Servers
• Again we have multiple classes/queues, but they are served
with a “soft” priority scheme
• Round-robin
• Weighted fair queuing
Transmission
Class
Class
Class123Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Weight
Weight
Line
Weight1031

Round-Robin/Cyclic Service
• Round-robin serves each queue in sequence
– A queue that is empty is skipped
– Each queue when served may have limited service (at most k packets
transmitted with k = 1 or k > 1)
• Round-robin is fair for all queues (as long as some queues do
not have longer packets than others)
• Round-robin cannot be used to enforce bandwidth allocation
among the queues.

Fair Queuing
• This scheduling method is inspired by the “most fair” of methods:
– Transmit one bit from each queue in cyclic order (bit-by-bit round robin)
– Skip queues that are empty
• To approximate the bit-by-bit processing behavior, for each packet
– We calculate upon arrival its “finish time under bit-by-bit round robin”
assuming all other queues are continuously busy, and we transmit by FIFO
within each queue
– Transmit next the packet with the minimum finish time
• Important properties:
– Priority is given to short packets
– Equal bandwidth is allocated to all queues that are continuously busy
Finish
Arrival
i-1
iDeparture
-1 Time
timestimes
of Packet i

Weighted Fair Queuing

• Fair queuing cannot be used to implement bandwidth allocation and soft
priorities
• Weighted fair queuing is a variation that corrects this deficiency
– Let wk be the weight of the kth queue
– Think of round-robin with queue k transmitting wk bits upon its turn
– If all queues have always something to send, the kth queue receives bandwidth
equal to a fraction wk / i wi of the total bandwidth
• Fair queuing corresponds to wk = 1
• Priority queuing corresponds to the weights being very high as we move to
higher priorities
• Again, to deal with the segmentation problem, we approximate as follows:
For each packet:
– We calculate its “finish time” (under the weighted bit-by-bit round robin
scheme)
– We next transmit the packet with the minimum finish time

Weighted Fair Queuing Illustration

Weights:
Queue 1 = 3
Queue 2 = 1
Queue 3 = 1

Combination of Several Queuing Schemes

• Example – voice (PQ), guaranteed b/w (WFQ), Best Effort
(Cisco’s LLQ implementation)

Demo: FIFO
FIFO
Bottleneck
90% utilization

Demo: FIFO Queuing Delay
Applications have different

requirements
• Video
» delay, jitter
• FTP
» packet loss
Control beyond “best effort”

needed
• Priority Queuing (PQ)
• Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)

Demo: Priority Queuing (PQ)
PQ
Bottleneck
90% utilization

Demo: PQ Queuing Delays
PQ FTP
FIFO
PQ Video

Demo: Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)
WFQ
Bottleneck
90% utilization

Demo: WFQ Queuing Delays
PQ FTP
WFQ FTP
FIFO
WFQ/PQ Video

Queuing: Take Away Points

• Choice of queuing mechanism can have a profound effect on
performance
• To achieve desired service differentiation, appropriate queuing
mechanisms can be used
• Complex queuing mechanisms may require simulation
techniques to analyze behavior
• Improper configuration (e.g., queuing mechanism selection or
weights) may impact performance of low priority traffic

Outline
• Basic concepts
• Source models
– M/M/1……M/M/m/k
– M/G/1……G/G/1
– Demo: Analytics vs. simulation

M/M/1 System
• Nomenclature: M stands for “Memoryless” (a property of the
exponential distribution)
– M/M/1 stands for Poisson arrival process (which is memoryless)
– M/M/1 stands for exponentially distributed transmission times
• Assumptions:
– Arrival process is Poisson with rate packets/sec
– Packet transmission times are exponentially distributed with mean 1/
– One server
– Independent interarrival times and packet transmission times
• Transmission time is proportional to packet length
• Note 1/ is secs/packet so  is packets/sec (packet
transmission rate of the queue)
• Utilization factor: = /stable system if 1)
Delay Calculation
• Let
Q = Average time spent waiting in queue
T = Average packet delay (transmission plus queuing)
• Note that T = 1/ + Q
• Also by Little’s law
N = T and Nq = Q
where
Nq = Average number waiting in queue
• These quantities can be calculated with formulas derived by
Markov chain analysis (see references)

M/M/1 Results
• The analysis gives the steady-state probabilities of

number of packets in queue or transmission
• P{n packets} = n(1-) where = /
• From this we can get the averages:
N = /(1 - )
T = N/ = /(1 - ) = 1/( - )
N/μ
T
1
0
μ
1
λρ

Example: How Delay Scales with Bandwidth
• Occupancy and delay formulas

N = /(1 - ) T = 1/( - ) = /
• Assume:
– Traffic arrival rate  is doubled
– System transmission capacity  is doubled
• Then:
– Queue sizes stay at the same level ( stays the same)
– Packet delay is cut in half ( and are doubled
• A conclusion: In high speed networks
– propagation delay increases in importance relative to delay
– buffer size and packet loss may still be a problem

M/M/m, M/M/ System
• Same as M/M/1, but it has m (or ) servers

• In M/M/m, the packet at the head of the queue moves
to service when a server becomes free
• Qualitative result
– Delay increases to as= /mapproaches 1
• There are analytical formulas for the occupancy
probabilities and average delay of these systems

Finite Buffer Systems: M/M/m/k
• The M/M/m/k system

– Same as M/M/m, but there is buffer space for at most k
packets. Packets arriving at a full buffer are dropped
• Formulas for average delay, steady-state occupancy
probabilities, and loss probability
• The M/M/m/m system is used widely to size
telephone or circuit switching systems

Characteristics of M/M/. Systems
• Advantage: Simple analytical formulas

• Disadvantages:
– The Poisson assumption may be violated
– The exponential transmission time distribution is an
approximation at best
– Interarrival and packet transmission times may be
dependent (particularly in the network core)
– Head-of-the-line assumption precludes heterogeneous input
traffic with priorities (hard or soft)

M/G/1 System
• Same as M/M/1 but the packet transmission time

distribution is general, with given mean 1/ and
variance 2
• Utilization factor  =  /
• Pollaczek-Kinchine formula for
Average time in queue = (2 + 1/2)/2(1- )
Average delay = 1/ + (2 + 1/2)/2(1- )
• The formulas for the steady-state occupancy
probabilities are more complicated
• Insight: As 2 increases, delay increases

G/G/1 System
• Same as M/G/1 but now the packet interarrival time

distribution is also general, with mean  and
variance 2
• We still assume FIFO and independent interarrival
times and packet transmission times
• Heavy traffic approximation:
Average time in queue ~ (2 + 2)/2(1- )
• Becomes increasingly accurate as 

Demo: M/G/1
Packet inter-arrival times Capacity

exponential (0.02) sec 1 Mbps
Packet size
1250 bytes Packet size distribution:
(10000 bits) exponential
constant
lognormal
What is the average delay and queue size ?

Demo: M/G/1 Analytical Results
Packet Size
Delay T (sec) Queue Size (packets)
Distribution
Exponential
mean = 10000 0.02 1.0
variance = 1.0 *108
Constant
mean = 10000 0.015 0.75
variance = N/A
Lognormal
mean = 10000 0.06 3.0
variance = 9.0 *108

Demo: M/G/1 Simulation Results
Average Delay (sec) Average Queue Size (packets)

Demo: M/G/1 Limitations
Application traffic mix not memoryless
• Video
» constant packet inter-arrivals
• Http
» bursty traffic
Delay
P-K formula
Simulation

Outline
• Basic concepts
• Source models
– Preemptive vs. non-preemptive
– Cyclic, WFQ, PQ systems
– Demo: Simulation results

Non-preemptive Priority Systems

• We distinguish between different classes of traffic (flows)
• Non-preemptive priority: packet under transmission is not
preempted by a packet of higher priority
• P-K formula for delay generalizes
Transmission
Class
Class
Class123Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Interm.
High
Low
Line
Priority
Priority
Priority

Cyclic Service Systems

• Multiple flows, each with its own queue
• Fair system: Each flow gets access to the transmission line in
turn
• Several possible assumptions about how many packets each
flow can transmit when it gets access
• Formulas for delay under M/G/1 type assumptions are
available
Transmission
Class 1
3
2
Arrivals
Line

Weighted Fair Queuing

• A combination of priority and cyclic service
• No exact analytical formulas are available

Outline
• Basic concepts
• Source models
– Violation of M/M/. assumptions
– Effects on delays and traffic shaping
– Analytical approximations

Two Queues in Series

• First queue shapes the traffic into second queue
• Arrival times and packet lengths are correlated
• M/M/1 and M/G/1 formulas yield significant error for second
queue
First Queue
Second
Time
Time
Queue

Two bottlenecks in series
Exponential
inter-arrivals
Bottleneck Bottleneck
No queuing delay
Delay

Approximations
• Kleinrock independence approximation
– Perform a delay calculation in each queue independently of other
queues
– Add the results (including propagation delay)
• Note: In the preceding example, the Kleinrock independence
approximation overestimates the queuing delay by 100%
• Tends to be more accurate in networks with “lots of traffic
mixing”, e.g., nodes serving many relatively small flows from
several different locations

Outline
• Basic concepts
• Source models
• Hybrid simulation
– Explicit vs. aggregated traffic
– Conceptual Framework
– Demo: PQ and WFQ with aggregated traffic

Basic Concepts of Hybrid Simulation

• Aims to combine the best of analytical results and simulation
• Achieve significant gain in simulation speed with little loss of
accuracy
• Divides the traffic through a node into explicit and
background
– Explicit traffic is simulated accurately
– Background traffic is aggregated
• The interaction of explicit and background is modeled either
analytically or through a “fast” simulation (or a combination)
Background
Explicit

Explicit Traffic
• Modeled in detail, including the effects of various protocols
• Each packet’s arrival and departure times are recorded (together
with other data of interest, e.g., loss, etc.) along each link that it
traverses
• Departure times at a link are the arrival times at the next link (plus
propagation delay)
• Objective: At each link, given the arrival times (and the packet
lengths), determine the departure times
.. .
Arrival
Departure
Time
a
d
Delay
1
4
2
3 times
times
at aatlink
the link

Aggregated Traffic
• Simplified modeling
– We don’t keep track of individual packets, only workload counts
(number of packets or bytes)
– We “generate” workload counts
» by probabilistic/analytical modeling, or
» by simplified simulation
• Aggregated (or background) traffic is local (per link)
• Shaping effects are complex to incorporate
• Some dependences between explicit and background traffic
along a chain of links are complicated and are ignored

Hybrid Simulation (FIFO Links): Conceptual

Framework
• Given the arrival time ak of the kth explicit packet
• Generate the workload wk found in queue by the kth packet
• From ak and wk generate the departure time of the kth packet as
Departure Time dk = ak + wk + sk
where sk is the transmission time of the kth packet
ARRIVAL TIMES
Explicit Explicit
aK wK a K+1 w K+1
Time
Background Background
Explicit Explicit
d K = aK + wK + sK
Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

DEPARTURE TIMES 77
Simulating the Background Traffic Effects

• Use a traffic descriptor for the background traffic (e.g., carried
by special packets)
• Traffic descriptor includes:
– Traffic volume information (e.g., packets/sec, bits/sec)
– Probability distribution of interarrival times
– Probability distribution of packet lengths
– Time interval of validity of the descriptor
• Generate wk using one of several ideas and combinations
thereof
– Successive sampling (for FIFO case)
– Steady-state queue length distribution (if we can get it)
– Simplified simulation (microsim - applies to complex queuing
disciplines)

Hybrid Simulation (FIFO Case)

• Critical Question: Given arrival times a k and ak+1, workload wk, and background
traffic descriptor, how do we find wk+1?
Arrival times/Workload found
a1 w1 a2 w2 a3 w
. . .
3
.. . Time
d1 = a1 + w1 + s1 d2 = a2 + w2 + s2 d3 = a3 + w3 + s3
Departure times
• Note: wk+1 consists of wk and two more terms:

– Background arrivals in interval ak+1 - ak
– (Minus) transmitted workload in interval a k+1 - ak
• Must calculate/simulate the two terms
• The first term is simulated based on the traffic descriptor of the background traffic
• The second term is easily calculated if the queue is continuously busy in a k+1 - ak
Short Interval Case (Easy Case)

• Short interval ak+1 - ak (i.e., ak+1 < dk)
• Queue is busy continuously in ak+1 - ak
• So wk+1 is quickly simulated
– Sample the background traffic arrival distribution to simulate the new
workload arrivals in ak+1 - ak
– Do the accounting (add to wk and subtract the transmitted workload in
ak+1 - ak )
Short Interval w k+1 = wk + (New bkg arrivals) - (Old bkg transmissions)
ak w k a k+1 wk+1
.. . Time
dk d k+1
Long Interval Case
• Long interval ak+1 - ak (i.e., ak+1 > dk)

• Queue may be idle during portions of the interval ak+1 - ak
• Need to generate/simulate
– The new arrivals in ak+1 - ak
– The lengths of the busy periods and the idle periods
• Can be done by sampling the background arrival distribution in each busy
period
•k+1
.. .
k Other
Time
Long
a
w
Idle
Busy
d kk+1 alternatives are possible
Periods
Periods
Interval

Steady-State Queue Length Distribution

• If the interval between two successive explicit packets is very
long, we can assume that the queue found by the second
packet is in steady state
• So, we can obtain wk+1 by sampling the steady-state
distribution
• Applies to cases where the steady-state distribution can be
found or can be reasonably approximated
– M/M/1 and other M/M/. Queues
– Some M/G/. systems

Micro Simulation: Conceptual Framework
• Handles complex queuing systems

– Micro-packets are generated to represent traffic load within the context
of the queue only (i.e., they are not transmitted to any external links)
– For long intervals, where convergence to a steady-state is likely
» Try to detect convergence during the microsim
» Estimate steady-state queue length distribution
» Sample the steady state distribution to estimate w k+1
• Microsim speeds up the simulation without sacrificing
accuracy
• Microsim provides a general framework
– Applies to non-stationary background traffic
– Applies to non-FIFO service models (with proper modification)

Examples of Applications
Analytical Modeling Discrete-Event Simulation
Hybrid DES
M/G/./. & M/G/./. & Decomposition
Analysis Scenarios with Explicit
G/G/./. G/G/./. with Kleinrock DES only with
and
FIFO Priority Independence Explicit Traffic
Background
Analysis Analysis Assumption
Traffic
Single Link with FIFO Service
Best Effort Service for Standard Data Traffic Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Best Effort Service for LRD/Self-Similar

Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Behavior Traffic
"Chancing It" with Best Effort Service for
Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Voice, Video and Data
Single Link with QoS-Based Queueing
Using QoS to differentiate service levels for Yes (loss of
N/A N/A Yes Yes
the same type of traffic accuracy)
Using QoS to support different requirements
for different application types given as a Highly
N/A N/A Yes Yes
detailed study of setting Cisco Router approximate
queueing parameters
Network of Queues
Hop-by-hop Yes (some loss of Yes (Run time a Yes [Fast with
General network model extending the
N/A Analysis (loss accuracy - e.g., traffic function of network minimal loss of
previous QoS queueing model
of accuacy) shaping) complexity) accuracy]
Hop-by-hop Yes (Run time a Yes [Fast with

Reduction of the general model to a
N/A Analysis (loss N/A function of network minimal loss of
representative end-to-end path
of accuacy) complexity) accuracy]

Demo End-to-end Delay: Baseline Network
Traffic modeled as
1) Explicit traffic
2) Background traffic

Target Flow: ETE delay as a function of ToS
Target flow: Seattle  Houston - modeled using explicit traffic

– Varying its Type of Service (ToS)
» Best Effort (0)
» Streaming Multimedia (4)
Explicit Simulation Results for Target Flow
– Total traffic volume

» 500 Mbps
– Time modeled
» 35 minutes
– Simulation duration
» 31 hours

Hybrid Simulation Results for Target Flow
– Total traffic volume

» 500 Mbps
– Time modeled
» 35 minutes
– Simulation duration
» 14 minutes

Comparison: Hybrid vs Explicit Simulation

References
• Networking
– Bertsekas and Gallager, Data Networks, Prentice-Hall, 1992
• Device Queuing Implementations
– Vegesna, IP Quality of Service, Ciscopress.com, 2001
– http://www.juniper.net/techcenter/techpapers/200020.pdf
• Probability and Queuing Models
– Bertsekas and Tsitsiklis, Introduction to Probability, Athena Scientific, 2002,
http://www.athenasc.com/probbook.html
– Cohen, The Single Server Queue, North-Holland, 1992
– Takagi, Queuing Analysis: A Foundation of Performance Evaluation. (3
Volumes), North-Holland, 1991
– Gross and Harris, Fundamentals of Queuing Theory, Wiley, 1985
– Cooper, Introduction to Queuing Theory, CEEPress, 1981
• OPNET Hybrid Simulation and Micro Simulation
– See Case Studies papers in
http://secure.opnet.com/services/muc/mtdlogis_cse_stdies_81.html

OPNET Full Presentation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

OPNET Full Presentation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Prof. Dimitri P. Bertsekas

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 1

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 2

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 3

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 4

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 5

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 6

Best Effort Service for LRD/Self-Similar

Hop-by-hop Yes (Run time a Yes [Fast with

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 7

Queuing System Concepts:

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 8

Stability and Steady-State

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 10

Explanation of Little’s Law

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 11

Delay is Caused by Packet Interference

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 12

Burstiness Causes Interference

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 13

Packet Length Variation Causes Interference

Regular arrivals, irregular packet lengths

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 15

High Utilization Exacerbates Interference

As the work arrival rate:

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 16

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 17

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

• The departure traffic from a bottleneck is more regular than the

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 18

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

Incoming traffic Outgoing traffic

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 19

Incoming traffic Outgoing traffic

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 20

Inter-departure times for small packets

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 21

Variable packet sizes

Histogram of inter-departure times for small packets

Constant packet sizes

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 22

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 23

Poisson Process with Rate 

• Interarrival times are independent and

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 24

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 25

Markov Modulated Rate Process (MMRP)

Stay in each state an exponentially

• Extension: Models with more than two states

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 26

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 27

Source Type Properties

Characteristics QoS Model

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 28

Typical Voice Source Behavior

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 29

MPEG1 Video Source Model

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 31

Device Queuing Mechanisms

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 32

Single Server FIFO

Copyright © 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 33