💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc2682.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 19:54:29.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group I. Widjaja
Request For Comments: 2682 Fujitsu Network Communications
Category: Informational A. Elwalid
Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies
September 1999
Performance Issues in VC-Merge Capable ATM LSRs
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
VC merging allows many routes to be mapped to the same VC label,
thereby providing a scalable mapping method that can support
thousands of edge routers. VC merging requires reassembly buffers so
that cells belonging to different packets intended for the same
destination do not interleave with each other. This document
investigates the impact of VC merging on the additional buffer
required for the reassembly buffers and other buffers. The main
result indicates that VC merging incurs a minimal overhead compared
to non-VC merging in terms of additional buffering. Moreover, the
overhead decreases as utilization increases, or as the traffic
becomes more bursty.
1.0 Introduction
Recently some radical proposals to overhaul the legacy router
architectures have been presented by several organizations, notably
the Ipsilon's IP switching [1], Cisco's Tag switching [2], Toshiba's
CSR [3], IBM's ARIS [4], and IETF's MPLS [5]. Although the details
of their implementations vary, there is one fundamental concept that
is shared by all these proposals: map the route information to short
fixed-length labels so that next-hop routers can be determined by
direct indexing.
Although any layer 2 switching mechanism can in principle be applied,
the use of ATM switches in the backbone network is believed to be a
very attractive solution since ATM hardware switches have been
extensively studied and are widely available in many different
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
architectures. In this document, we will assume that layer 2
switching uses ATM technology. In this case, each IP packet may be
segmented to multiple 53-byte cells before being switched.
Traditionally, AAL 5 has been used as the encapsulation method in
data communications since it is simple, efficient, and has a powerful
error detection mechanism. For the ATM switch to forward incoming
cells to the correct outputs, the IP route information needs to be
mapped to ATM labels which are kept in the VPI or/and VCI fields.
The relevant route information that is stored semi-permanently in the
IP routing table contains the tuple (destination, next-hop router).
The route information changes when the network state changes and this
typically occurs slowly, except during transient cases. The word
"destination" typically refers to the destination network (or CIDR
prefix), but can be readily generalized to (destination network,
QoS), (destination host, QoS), or many other granularities. In this
document, the destination can mean any of the above or other possible
granularities.
Several methods of mapping the route information to ATM labels exist.
In the simplest form, each source-destination pair is mapped to a
unique VC value at a switch. This method, called the non-VC merging
case, allows the receiver to easily reassemble cells into respective
packets since the VC values can be used to distinguish the senders.
However, if there are n sources and destinations, each switch is
potentially required to manage O(n^2) VC labels for full-meshed
connectivity. For example, if there are 1,000 sources/destinations,
then the size of the VC routing table is on the order of 1,000,000
entries. Clearly, this method is not scalable to large networks. In
the second method called VP merging, the VP labels of cells that are
intended for the same destination would be translated to the same
outgoing VP value, thereby reducing VP consumption downstream. For
each VP, the VC value is used to identify the sender so that the
receiver can reconstruct packets even though cells from different
packets are allowed to interleave. Each switch is now required to
manage O(n) VP labels - a considerable saving from O(n^2). Although
the number of label entries is considerably reduced, VP merging is
limited to only 4,096 entries at the network-to-network interface.
Moreover, VP merging requires coordination of the VC values for a
given VP, which introduces more complexity. A third method, called
VC merging, maps incoming VC labels for the same destination to the
same outgoing VC label. This method is scalable and does not have the
space constraint problem as in VP merging. With VC merging, cells for
the same destination is indistinguishable at the output of a switch.
Therefore, cells belonging to different packets for the same
destination cannot interleave with each other, or else the receiver
will not be able to reassemble the packets. With VC merging, the
boundary between two adjacent packets are identified by the "End-of-
Packet" (EOP) marker used by AAL 5.
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
It is worthy to mention that cell interleaving may be allowed if we
use the AAL 3/4 Message Identifier (MID) field to identify the sender
uniquely. However, this method has some serious drawbacks as: 1) the
MID size may not be sufficient to identify all senders, 2) the
encapsulation method is not efficient, 3) the CRC capability is not
as powerful as in AAL 5, and 4) AAL 3/4 is not as widely supported as
AAL 5 in data communications.
Before VC merging with no cell interleaving can be qualified as the
most promising approach, two main issues need to be addressed.
First, the feasibility of an ATM switch that is capable of merging
VCs needs to be investigated. Second, there is widespread concern
that the additional amount of buffering required to implement VC
merging is excessive and thus making the VC-merging method
impractical. Through analysis and simulation, we will dispel these
concerns in this document by showing that the additional buffer
requirement for VC merging is minimal for most practical purposes.
Other performance related issues such as additional delay due to VC
merging will also be discussed.
2.0 A VC-Merge Capable MPLS Switch Architecture
In principle, the reassembly buffers can be placed at the input or
output side of a switch. If they are located at the input, then the
switch fabric has to transfer all cells belonging to a given packet
in an atomic manner since cells are not allowed to interleave. This
requires the fabric to perform frame switching which is not flexible
nor desirable when multiple QoSs need to be supported. On the other
hand, if the reassembly buffers are located at the output, the switch
fabric can forward each cell independently as in normal ATM
switching. Placing the reassembly buffers at the output makes an
output-buffered ATM switch a natural choice.
We consider a generic output-buffered VC-merge capable MPLS switch
with VCI translation performed at the output. Other possible
architectures may also be adopted. The switch consists of a non-
blocking cell switch fabric and multiple output modules (OMs), each
is associated with an output port. Each arriving ATM cell is
appended with two fields containing an output port number and an
input port number. Based on the output port number, the switch
fabric forwards each cell to the correct output port, just as in
normal ATM switches. If VC merging is not implemented, then the OM
consists of an output buffer. If VC merging is implemented, the OM
contains a number of reassembly buffers (RBs), followed by a merging
unit, and an output buffer. Each RB typically corresponds to an
incoming VC value. It is important to note that each buffer is a
logical buffer, and it is envisioned that there is a common pool of
memory for the reassembly buffers and the output buffer.
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
The purpose of the RB is to ensure that cells for a given packet do
not interleave with other cells that are merged to the same VC. This
mechanism (called store-and-forward at the packet level) can be
accomplished by storing each incoming cell for a given packet at the
RB until the last cell of the packet arrives. When the last cell
arrives, all cells in the packet are transferred in an atomic manner
to the output buffer for transmission to the next hop. It is worth
pointing out that performing a cut-through mode at the RB is not
recommended since it would result in wastage of bandwidth if the
subsequent cells are delayed. During the transfer of a packet to the
output buffer, the incoming VCI is translated to the outgoing VCI by
the merging unit. To save VC translation table space, different
incoming VCIs are merged to the same outgoing VCI during the
translation process if the cells are intended for the same
destination. If all traffic is best-effort, full-merging where all
incoming VCs destined for the same destination network are mapped to
the same outgoing VC, can be implemented. However, if the traffic is
composed of multiple classes, it is desirable to implement partial
merging, where incoming VCs destined for the same (destination
network, QoS) are mapped to the same outgoing VC.
Regardless of whether full merging or partial merging is implemented,
the output buffer may consist of a single FIFO buffer or multiple
buffers each corresponding to a destination network or (destination
network, QoS). If a single output buffer is used, then the switch
essentially tries to emulate frame switching. If multiple output
buffers are used, VC merging is different from frame switching since
cells of a given packet are not bound to be transmitted back-to-back.
In fact, fair queueing can be implemented so that cells from their
respective output buffers are served according to some QoS
requirements. Note that cell-by-cell scheduling can be implemented
with VC merging, whereas only packet-by-packet scheduling can be
implemented with frame switching. In summary, VC merging is more
flexible than frame switching and supports better QoS control.
3.0 Performance Investigation of VC Merging
This section compares the VC-merging switch and the non-VC merging
switch. The non-VC merging switch is analogous to the traditional
output-buffered ATM switch, whereby cells of any packets are allowed
to interleave. Since each cell is a distinct unit of information,
the non-VC merging switch is a work-conserving system at the cell
level. On the other hand, the VC-merging switch is non-work
conserving so its performance is always lower than that of the non-VC
merging switch. The main objective here is to study the effect of VC
merging on performance implications of MPLS switches such as
additional delay, additional buffer, etc., subject to different
traffic conditions.
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
In the simulation, the arrival process to each reassembly buffer is
an independent ON-OFF process. Cells within an ON period form a
single packet. During an OFF periof, the slots are idle. Note that
the ON-OFF process is a general process that can model any traffic
process.
3.1 Effect of Utilization on Additional Buffer Requirement
We first investigate the effect of switch utilization on the
additional buffer requirement for a given overflow probability. To
carry the comparison, we analyze the VC-merging and non-VC merging
case when the average packet size is equal to 10 cells, using
geometrically distributed packet sizes and packet interarrival times,
with cells of a packet arriving contiguously (later, we consider
other distributions). The results show, as expected, the VC-merging
switch requires more buffers than the non-VC merging switch. When the
utilization is low, there may be relatively many incomplete packets
in the reassembly buffers at any given time, thus wasting storage
resource. For example, when the utilization is 0.3, VC merging
requires an additional storage of about 45 cells to achieve the same
overflow probability. However, as the utilization increases to 0.9,
the additional storage to achieve the same overflow probability drops
to about 30 cells. The reason is that when traffic intensity
increases, the VC-merging system becomes more work-conserving.
It is important to note that ATM switches must be dimensioned at high
utilization value (in the range of 0.8-0.9) to withstand harsh
traffic conditions. At the utilization of 0.9, a VC-merge ATM switch
requires a buffer of size 976 cells to provide an overflow
probability of 10^{-5}, whereas an non-VC merge ATM switch requires a
buffer of size 946. These numbers translate the additional buffer
requirement for VC merging to about 3% - hardly an additional
buffering cost.
3.2 Effect of Packet Size on Additional Buffer Requirement
We now vary the average packet size to see the impact on the buffer
requirement. We fix the utilization to 0.5 and use two different
average packet sizes; that is, B=10 and B=30. To achieve the same
overflow probability, VC merging requires an additional buffer of
about 40 cells (or 4 packets) compared to non-VC merging when B=10.
When B=30, the additional buffer requirement is about 90 cells (or 3
packets). As expected, the additional buffer requirement in terms of
cells increases as the packet size increases. However, the additional
buffer requirement is roughly constant in terms of packets.
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
3.3 Additional Buffer Overhead Due to Packet Reassembly
There may be some concern that VC merging may require too much
buffering when the number of reassembly buffers increases, which
would happen if the switch size is increased or if cells for packets
going to different destinations are allowed to interleave. We will
show that the concern is unfounded since buffer sharing becomes more
efficient as the number of reassembly buffers increases.
To demonstrate our argument, we consider the overflow probability for
VC merging for several values of reassembly buffers (N); i.e., N=4,
8, 16, 32, 64, and 128. The utilization is fixed to 0.8 for each
case, and the average packet size is chosen to be 10. For a given
overflow probability, the increase in buffer requirement becomes less
pronounced as N increases. Beyond a certain value (N=32), the
increase in buffer requirement becomes insignificant. The reason is
that as N increases, the traffic gets thinned and eventually
approaches a limiting process.
3.4 Effect of Interarrival time Distribution on Additional Buffer
We now turn our attention to different traffic processes. First, we
use the same ON period distribution and change the OFF period
distribution from geometric to hypergeometric which has a larger
Square Coefficient of Variation (SCV), defined to be the ratio of the
variance to the square of the mean. Here we fix the utilization at
0.5. As expected, the switch performance degrades as the SCV
increases in both the VC-merging and non-VC merging cases. To
achieve a buffer overflow probability of 10^{-4}, the additional
buffer required is about 40 cells when SCV=1, 26 cells when SCV=1.5,
and 24 cells when SCV=2.6. The result shows that VC merging becomes
more work-conserving as SCV increases. In summary, as the
interarrival time between packets becomes more bursty, the additional
buffer requirement for VC merging diminishes.
3.5 Effect of Internet Packets on Additional Buffer Requirement
Up to now, the packet size has been modeled as a geometric
distribution with a certain parameter. We modify the packet size
distribution to a more realistic one for the rest of this document.
Since the initial deployment of VC-merge capable ATM switches is
likely to be in the core network, it is more realistic to consider
the packet size distribution in the Wide Area Network. To this end,
we refer to the data given in [6]. The data collected on Feb 10,
1996, in FIX-West network, is in the form of probability mass
function versus packet size in bytes. Data collected at other dates
closely resemble this one.
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
The distribution appears bi-modal with two big masses at 40 bytes
(about a third) due to TCP acknowledgment packets, and 552 bytes
(about 22 percent) due to Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) limitations
in many routers. Other prominent packet sizes include 72 bytes (about
4.1 percent), 576 bytes (about 3.6 percent), 44 bytes (about 3
percent), 185 bytes (about 2.7 percent), and 1500 bytes (about 1.5
percent) due to Ethernet MTU. The mean packet size is 257 bytes, and
the variance is 84,287 bytes^2. Thus, the SCV for the Internet packet
size is about 1.1.
To convert the IP packet size in bytes to ATM cells, we assume AAL 5
using null encapsulation where the additional overhead in AAL 5 is 8
bytes long [7]. Using the null encapsulation technique, the average
packet size is about 6.2 ATM cells.
We examine the buffer overflow probability against the buffer size
using the Internet packet size distribution. The OFF period is
assumed to have a geometric distribution. Again, we find that the
same behavior as before, except that the buffer requirement drops
with Internet packets due to smaller average packet size.
3.6 Effect of Correlated Interarrival Times on Additional Buffer
Requirement
To model correlated interarrival times, we use the DAR(p) process
(discrete autoregressive process of order p) [8], which has been used
to accurately model video traffic (Star Wars movie) in [9]. The
DAR(p) process is a p-th order (lag-p) discrete-time Markov chain.
The state of the process at time n depends explicitly on the states
at times (n-1), ..., (n-p).
We examine the overflow probability for the case where the
interarrival time between packets is geometric and independent, and
the case where the interarrival time is geometric and correlated to
the previous one with coefficient of correlation equal to 0.9. The
empirical distribution of the Internet packet size from the last
section is used. The utilization is fixed to 0.5 in each case.
Although, the overflow probability increases as p increases, the
additional amount of buffering actually decreases for VC merging as
p, or equivalently the correlation, increases. One can easily
conclude that higher-order correlation or long-range dependence,
which occurs in self-similar traffic, will result in similar
qualitative performance.
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
3.7 Slow Sources
The discussions up to now have assumed that cells within a packet
arrive back-to-back. When traffic shaping is implemented, adjacent
cells within the same packet would typically be spaced by idle slots.
We call such sources as "slow sources". Adjacent cells within the
same packet may also be perturbed and spaced as these cells travel
downstream due to the merging and splitting of cells at preceding
nodes.
Here, we assume that each source transmits at the rate of r_s (0 <
r_s < 1), in units of link speed, to the ATM switch. To capture the
merging and splitting of cells as they travel in the network, we will
also assume that the cell interarrival time within a packet is ran-
domly perturbed. To model this perturbation, we stretch the original
ON period by 1/r_s, and flip a Bernoulli coin with parameter r_s
during the stretched ON period. In other words, a slot would contain
a cell with probability r_s, and would be idle with probability 1-r_s
during the ON period. By doing so, the average packet size remains
the same as r_s is varied. We simulated slow sources on the VC-merge
ATM switch using the Internet packet size distribution with r_s=1 and
r_s=0.2. The packet interarrival time is assumed to be geometrically
distributed. Reducing the source rate in general reduces the
stresses on the ATM switches since the traffic becomes smoother.
With VC merging, slow sources also have the effect of increasing the
reassembly time. At utilization of 0.5, the reassembly time is more
dominant and causes the slow source (with r_s=0.2) to require more
buffering than the fast source (with r_s=1). At utilization of 0.8,
the smoother traffic is more dominant and causes the slow source
(with r_s=0.2) to require less buffering than the fast source (with
r_s=1). This result again has practical consequences in ATM switch
design where buffer dimensioning is performed at reasonably high
utilization. In this situation, slow sources only help.
3.8 Packet Delay
It is of interest to see the impact of cell reassembly on packet
delay. Here we consider the delay at one node only; end-to-end delays
are subject of ongoing work. We define the delay of a packet as the
time between the arrival of the first cell of a packet at the switch
and the departure of the last cell of the same packet. We study the
average packet delay as a function of utilization for both VC-merging
and non-VC merging switches for the case r_s=1 (back-to-back cells in
a packet). Again, the Internet packet size distribution is used to
adopt the more realistic scenario. The interarrival time of packets
is geometrically distributed. Although the difference in the worst-
case delay between VC-merging and non-VC merging can be theoretically
very large, we consistently observe that the difference in average
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
delays of the two systems to be consistently about one average packet
time for a wide range of utilization. The difference is due to the
average time needed to reassemble a packet.
To see the effect of cell spacing in a packet, we again simulate the
average packet delay for r_s=0.2. We observe that the difference in
average delays of VC merging and non-VC merging increases to a few
packet times (approximately 20 cells at high utilization). It should
be noted that when a VC-merge capable ATM switch reassembles packets,
in effect it performs the task that the receiver has to do otherwise.
From practical point-of-view, an increase in 20 cells translates to
about 60 micro seconds at OC-3 link speed. This additional delay
should be insignificant for most applications.
4.0 Security Considerations
There are no security considerations directly related to this
document since the document is concerned with the performance
implications of VC merging. There are also no known security
considerations as a result of the proposed modification of a legacy
ATM LSR to incorporate VC merging.
5.0 Discussion
This document has investigated the impacts of VC merging on the
performance of an ATM LSR. We experimented with various traffic
processes to understand the detailed behavior of VC-merge capable ATM
LSRs. Our main finding indicates that VC merging incurs a minimal
overhead compared to non-VC merging in terms of additional buffering.
Moreover, the overhead decreases as utilization increases, or as the
traffic becomes more bursty. This fact has important practical
consequences since switches are dimensioned for high utilization and
stressful traffic conditions. We have considered the case where the
output buffer uses a FIFO scheduling. However, based on our
investigation on slow sources, we believe that fair queueing will not
introduce a significant impact on the additional amount of buffering.
Others may wish to investigate this further.
6.0 Acknowledgement
The authors thank Debasis Mitra for his penetrating questions during
the internal talks and discussions.
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 9]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
7.0 References
[1] P. Newman, Tom Lyon and G. Minshall, "Flow Labelled IP:
Connectionless ATM Under IP", in Proceedings of INFOCOM'96, San-
Francisco, April 1996.
[2] Rekhter,Y., Davie, B., Katz, D., Rosen, E. and G. Swallow, "Cisco
Systems' Tag Switching Architecture Overview", RFC 2105, February
1997.
[3] Katsube, Y., Nagami, K. and H. Esaki, "Toshiba's Router
Architecture Extensions for ATM: Overview", RFC 2098, February
1997.
[4] A. Viswanathan, N. Feldman, R. Boivie and R. Woundy, "ARIS:
Aggregate Route-Based IP Switching", Work in Progress.
[5] R. Callon, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, G. Swallow and A.
Viswanathan, "A Framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching",
Work in Progress.
[6] WAN Packet Size Distribution,
http://www.nlanr.net/NA/Learn/packetsizes.html.
[7] Heinanen, J., "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation
Layer 5", RFC 1483, July 1993.
[8] P. Jacobs and P. Lewis, "Discrete Time Series Generated by
Mixtures III: Autoregressive Processes (DAR(p))", Technical
Report NPS55-78-022, Naval Postgraduate School, 1978.
[9] B.K. Ryu and A. Elwalid, "The Importance of Long-Range Dependence
of VBR Video Traffic in ATM Traffic Engineering", ACM SigComm'96,
Stanford, CA, pp. 3-14, August 1996.
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 10]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
Authors' Addresses
Indra Widjaja
Fujitsu Network Communications
Two Blue Hill Plaza
Pearl River, NY 10965, USA
Phone: 914 731-2244
EMail: indra.widjaja@fnc.fujitsu.com
Anwar Elwalid
Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies
600 Mountain Ave, Rm 2C-324
Murray Hill, NJ 07974, USA
Phone: 908 582-7589
EMail: anwar@lucent.com
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 11]
RFC 2682 Issues in VC Merge Capable ATM LSRs September 1999
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Widjaja & Elwalid Informational [Page 12]