OPNET Full Presentation

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment
Session 1813
Traffic Behavior and
Queuing in a QoS
Environment
NetworkingTutorials
Prof.DimitriP.Bertsekas
DepartmentofElectricalEngineering
M.I.T.
Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.
Objectives
Providesomebasicunderstandingofqueuingphenomena
Explaintheavailablesolutionapproachesandassociated
tradeoffs
Giveguidelinesonhowtomatchapplicationsandsolutions
Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Priority/sharedservicesystems
Networksofqueues
Hybridsimulation(demo)
Outline
Basicconcepts
Performancemeasures
Solutionmethodologies
Queuingsystemconcepts
Stabilityandsteadystate
Causesofdelayandbottlenecks
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Networksofqueues
Performance Measures
Delay
Delayvariation(jitter)
Packetloss
Efficientsharingofbandwidth
Relativeimportancedependsontraffictype(audio/video,
filetransfer,interactive)
Challenge:Provideadequateperformancefor(possibly)
heterogeneoustraffic
Solution Methodologies
Analyticalresults(formulas)
Pros:Quickanswers,insight
Cons:Ofteninaccurateorinapplicable
Explicitsimulation
Pros:Accurateandrealisticmodels,broadapplicability
Cons:Canbeslow
Hybridsimulation
Intermediatesolutionapproach
Combinesadvantagesanddisadvantagesofanalysisandsimulation
Examples of Applications
Analytical Modeling
Discrete-Event Simulation
Hybrid DES
with Explicit
DES only with
and
Explicit Traffic
Background
Traffic
M/G/./. &
G/G/./.
FIFO
Analysis
M/G/./. &
G/G/./.
Priority
Analysis
Decomposition
with Kleinrock
Independence
Assumption
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Using QoS to differentiate service levels for

the same type of traffic
N/A
Yes (loss of
accuracy)
N/A
Yes
Yes
Using QoS to support different requirements

for different application types given as a
detailed study of setting Cisco Router
queueing parameters
N/A
Highly
approximate
N/A
Yes
Yes
General network model extending the

previous QoS queueing model
N/A
Hop-by-hop
Analysis (loss
of accuacy)
Reduction of the general model to a

representative end-to-end path
N/A
Hop-by-hop
Analysis (loss
of accuacy)
Analysis Scenarios
Single Link with FIFO Service

Best Effort Service for Standard Data Traffic
Best Effort Service for LRD/Self-Similar
Behavior Traffic
"Chancing It" with Best Effort Service for
Voice, Video and Data
Single Link with QoS-Based Queueing
Network of Queues
Yes (some loss of

Yes (Run time a
accuracy - e.g., traffic function of network
shaping)
complexity)
Yes [Fast with

minimal loss of
accuracy]
Yes (Run time a

function of network
complexity)
Yes [Fast with

minimal loss of
accuracy]
N/A
Queuing System Concepts:

Arrival Rate, Occupancy, Time in the
System
Queuingsystem
Datanetworkwherepacketsarrive,waitinvariousqueues,receive
serviceatvariouspoints,andexitaftersometime
Arrivalrate
Longtermnumberofarrivalsperunittime
Occupancy
Numberofpacketsinthesystem(averagedoveralongtime)
Timeinthesystem(delay)
Timefrompacketentrytoexit(averagedovermanypackets)
Stability and Steady-State

Asinglequeuesystemisstableif
packet arrival rate < system transmission capacity
Forasinglequeue,theratio
packet arrival rate / system transmission capacity
iscalledtheutilizationfactor
Describestheloadingofaqueue
Inanunstablesystempacketsaccumulateinvariousqueues
and/orgetdropped
Forunstablesystemswithlargebufferssomepacketdelays
becomeverylarge
Flow/admissioncontrolmaybeusedtolimitthepacketarrivalrate
Prioritizationofflowskeepsdelaysboundedfortheimportanttraffic
Stablesystemswithtimestationaryarrivaltrafficapproacha
steadystate
Littles Law
Foragivenarrivalrate,thetimeinthesystemisproportional
topacketoccupancy
N=T
where
N:average#ofpacketsinthesystem
:packetarrivalrate(packetsperunittime)
T:averagedelay(timeinthesystem)perpacket
Examples:
Onrainydays,streetsandhighwaysaremorecrowded
Fastfoodrestaurantsneedasmallerdiningroomthanregular
restaurantswiththesamecustomerarrivalrate
Largebufferingtogetherwithlargearrivalratecauselargedelays
10
Explanation of Littles Law

Amusementparkanalogy:peoplearrive,spendtimeat
varioussites,andleave
Theypay$1perunittimeinthepark
Therateatwhichtheparkearnsis$Nperunittime(N:
average#ofpeopleinthepark)
Therateatwhichpeoplepayis$Tperunittime(:traffic
arrivalrate,T:timeperperson)
Overalonghorizon:
Rateofparkearnings=Rateofpeoplespayment
or
N=T
11
Delay is Caused by Packet Interference

Ifarrivalsareregularorsufficientlyspacedapart,noqueuing
delayoccurs
T
2
4
3
1
ime Times
Arrival
Departure
Times
RegularTraffic
T
2
4
3
1
ime Times
Arrival
Departure
Times
Irregularbut
SpacedApartTraffic
12
Burstiness Causes Interference

Notethatthedeparturesarelessbursty
Queuing
Delays
BurstyTraffic
4
3
2
1
Time
13
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
14
Packet Length Variation Causes

Interference
Time
QueuingDelays
Regulararrivals,irregularpacketlengths
15
High Utilization Exacerbates Interference

Time
QueuingDelays
Astheworkarrivalrate:
(packetarrivalrate*packetlength)
increases,theopportunityforinterferenceincreases
16
Bottlenecks
Typesofbottlenecks
Ataccesspoints(flowcontrol,prioritization,QoSenforcementneeded)
Atpointswithinthenetworkcore
Isolated(canbeanalyzedinisolation)
Interrelated(networkorchainanalysisneeded)
Bottlenecksresultfromoverloadscausedby:
Highloadsessions,or
Convergenceofsufficientnumberofmoderateloadsessionsatthe
samequeue
17
Bottlenecks Cause Shaping
Time
Thedeparturetrafficfromabottleneckismoreregularthanthe
arrivaltraffic
Theinterdeparturetimebetweentwopacketsisatleastas
largeasthetransmissiontimeofthe2ndpacket
18
Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

Incomingtraffic
Outgoingtraffic
Exponential
interarrivals
gap
Bottleneck
90%utilization
19
Incomingtraffic
Outgoingtraffic
Small
Medium
Bottleneck
90%utilization
Large
20
Packet Trains
Interdeparturetimesforsmallpackets
21
Variable packet sizes

Histogramofinterdeparturetimesforsmallpackets
#ofpackets
Variablepacket
Peakssmeared
sizes
Constantpacketsizes
sec
22
Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Poissontraffic
Batcharrivals
Exampleapplicationsvoice,video,filetransfer
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Networksofqueues
23
Poisson Process with Rate

Interarrivaltimesareindependentand
exponentiallydistributed
Modelswelltheaccumulatedtrafficofmany
independentsources
Theaverageinterarrivaltimeis1/
(secs/packet),soisthearrivalrate
(packets/sec)
Time
Interarrival
Times
24
Batch Arrivals
Somesourcestransmitinpacketbursts
Maybebettermodeledbyabatcharrivalprocess(e.g.,bursts
ofpacketsarrivingaccordingtoaPoissonprocess)
Thecaseforabatchmodelisweakeratqueuesafterthefirst,
becauseofshaping
Time
Interarrival
Times
25
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:Modelswithmorethantwostates
26
Source Types
Voicesources
Videosources
Filetransfers
Webtraffic
Interactivetraffic
DifferentapplicationtypeshavedifferentQoSrequirements,
e.g.,delay,jitter,loss,throughput,etc.
27
Source Type Properties

Characteristics
Voice
Video
Interactive
FTP
telnet
web
QoS
Requirements
Model
*Alternatingtalk
spurtsandsilence
intervals.
*Talkspurtsproduce
constantpacketrate
traffic
Delay<~150ms
Jitter<~30ms
Packetloss<~1%
*Twostate(onoff)Markov
ModulatedRateProcess(MMRP)
*Exponentiallydistributedtimeat
eachstate
*Highlyburstytraffic
(whenencoded)
*Longrange
dependencies
Delay<~400ms
Jitter<~30ms
Kstate(onoff)MarkovModulated
RateProcess(MMRP)
*Poissontype
*Sometimesbatch
arrivals,orbursty,
orsometimesonoff
Zeroornearsero
packetloss
Delaymaybe
important
Packetloss<~1%
Poisson,Poissonwithbatcharrivals,
TwostateMMRP
28
Typical Voice Source Behavior
29
MPEG1 Video Source Model

TheMPEG1MMRPmodelcanbeextremelybursty,andhas
longrangedependencybehaviorduetothedeterministic
framesequence
Diagram Source: Mark W. Garrett and Walter Willinger, Analysis, Modeling, and Generation of Self-Similar VBR Video Traffic, BELLCORE, 1994
30
Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels
Singlevs.multipleservers
FIFO,priority,andsharedservers
Demo
Singlequeuesystems
Networksofqueues
31
Device Queuing Mechanisms

CommonqueueexamplesforIProuters
FIFO:FirstInFirstOut
PQ:PriorityQueuing
WFQ:WeightedFairQueuing
Combinationsoftheabove
Servicetypesfromaqueuingtheorystandpoint
Singleserver(onequeueonetransmissionline)
Multipleserver(onequeueseveraltransmissionlines)
Priorityserver(severalqueueswithhardprioritiesonetransmission
line)
Sharedserver(severalqueueswithsoftprioritiesonetransmission
line)
32
Single Server FIFO

SingletransmissionlineservingpacketsonaFIFO(FirstIn
FirstOut)basis
Eachpacketmustwaitforallpacketsfoundinthesystemto
completetransmission,beforestartingtransmission
DepartureTime=ArrivalTime+WorkloadFoundintheSystem+
Transmissiontime
Packetsarrivingtoafullbufferaredropped
Arrivals
Transmission
Line
33
FIFO Queue
PacketsareplacedonoutboundlinktoegressdeviceinFIFOorder
Device(router,switch)multiplexesdifferentflowsarrivingonvariousingress
portsontoanoutputbufferformingaFIFOqueue
34
Multiple Servers
Multiplepacketsaretransmittedsimultaneouslyonmultiple
lines/servers
Headofthelineservice:packetswaitinaFIFOqueue,and
whenaserverbecomesfree,thefirstpacketgoesintoservice
Arrivals
Transmission
Lines
35
Priority Servers
Packetsformpriorityclasses(eachmayhaveseveralflows)
ThereisaseparateFIFOqueueforeachpriorityclass
Packetsoflowerprioritystarttransmissiononlyifnohigher
prioritypacketiswaiting
Prioritytypes:
Nonpreemptive(highprioritypacketmustwaitforalowerpriority
packetfoundundertransmissionuponarrival)
Preemptive(highprioritypacketdoesnothavetowait)
Transmission
Class
Class
Class123Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Interm.
High
Low
Line
Priority
Priority
Priority
36
Priority Queuing
Packetsareclassifiedintoseparatequeues
E.g.,basedonsource/destinationIPaddress,source/destinationTCPport,etc.
Allpacketsinahigherpriorityqueueareservedbeforealowerpriority
queueisserved
Typicallyinrouters,ifahigherprioritypacketarriveswhilealowerpriority
packetisbeingtransmitted,itwaitsuntilthelowerprioritypacketcompletes
37
Shared Servers
Againwehavemultipleclasses/queues,buttheyareserved
withasoftpriorityscheme
Roundrobin
Weightedfairqueuing
Transmission
Class
Class
Class123Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Weight
Weight
Line
Weight
10
31
38
Round-Robin/Cyclic Service
Roundrobinserveseachqueueinsequence
Aqueuethatisemptyisskipped
Eachqueuewhenservedmayhavelimitedservice(atmostkpackets
transmittedwithk=1ork>1)
Roundrobinisfairforallqueues(aslongassomequeuesdo
nothavelongerpacketsthanothers)
Roundrobincannotbeusedtoenforcebandwidthallocation
amongthequeues.
39
Fair Queuing
Thisschedulingmethodisinspiredbythemostfairofmethods:
Transmitonebitfromeachqueueincyclicorder(bitbybitroundrobin)
Skipqueuesthatareempty
Toapproximatethebitbybitprocessingbehavior,foreachpacket
Wecalculateuponarrivalitsfinishtimeunderbitbybitroundrobin
assumingallotherqueuesarecontinuouslybusy,andwetransmitbyFIFO
withineachqueue
Transmitnextthepacketwiththeminimumfinishtime
Importantproperties:
Priorityisgiventoshortpackets
Equalbandwidthisallocatedtoallqueuesthatarecontinuouslybusy
Finish
Arrival
i-1
iDeparture
-1
Time
times
times
of Packet i
40
Weighted Fair Queuing

Fairqueuingcannotbeusedtoimplementbandwidthallocationandsoft
priorities
Weightedfairqueuingisavariationthatcorrectsthisdeficiency
Letwkbetheweightofthekthqueue
Thinkofroundrobinwithqueuektransmittingwkbitsuponitsturn
Ifallqueueshavealwayssomethingtosend,thekthqueuereceivesbandwidth
equaltoafractionwk/iwiofthetotalbandwidth
Fairqueuingcorrespondstowk=1
Priorityqueuingcorrespondstotheweightsbeingveryhighaswemoveto
higherpriorities
Again,todealwiththesegmentationproblem,weapproximateasfollows:
Foreachpacket:
Wecalculateitsfinishtime(undertheweightedbitbybitroundrobin
scheme)
Wenexttransmitthepacketwiththeminimumfinishtime
41
Weighted Fair Queuing Illustration

Weights:
Queue 1 = 3
Queue 2 = 1
Queue 3 = 1
42
Combination of Several Queuing

Schemes
Examplevoice(PQ),guaranteedb/w(WFQ),BestEffort
(CiscosLLQimplementation)
43
Demo: FIFO
FIFO
Bottleneck
90%utilization
44
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)
45
Demo: Priority Queuing (PQ)
PQ
Bottleneck
90%utilization
46
Demo: PQ Queuing Delays
PQFTP
FIFO
PQVideo
47
Demo: Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)
WFQ
Bottleneck
90%utilization
48
Demo: WFQ Queuing Delays
PQFTP
WFQFTP
FIFO
WFQ/PQVideo
49
Queuing: Take Away Points

Choiceofqueuingmechanismcanhaveaprofoundeffecton
performance
Toachievedesiredservicedifferentiation,appropriatequeuing
mechanismscanbeused
Complexqueuingmechanismsmayrequiresimulation
techniquestoanalyzebehavior
Improperconfiguration(e.g.,queuingmechanismselectionor
weights)mayimpactperformanceoflowprioritytraffic
50
Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
M/M/1M/M/m/k
M/G/1G/G/1
Demo:Analyticsvs.simulation
Networksofqueues
51
M/M/1 System
Nomenclature:MstandsforMemoryless(apropertyofthe
exponentialdistribution)
M/M/1standsforPoissonarrivalprocess(whichismemoryless)
M/M/1standsforexponentiallydistributedtransmissiontimes
Assumptions:
ArrivalprocessisPoissonwithratepackets/sec
Packettransmissiontimesareexponentiallydistributedwithmean1/
Oneserver
Independentinterarrivaltimesandpackettransmissiontimes
Transmissiontimeisproportionaltopacketlength
Note1/issecs/packetsoispackets/sec(packet
transmissionrateofthequeue)
Utilizationfactor:=/stablesystemif1)
52
Delay Calculation
Let
Q=Averagetimespentwaitinginqueue
T=Averagepacketdelay(transmissionplusqueuing)
NotethatT=1/+Q
AlsobyLittleslaw
N=TandNq=Q
where
Nq=Averagenumberwaitinginqueue
Thesequantitiescanbecalculatedwithformulasderivedby
Markovchainanalysis(seereferences)
53
M/M/1 Results
Theanalysisgivesthesteadystateprobabilitiesof
numberofpacketsinqueueortransmission
P{npackets}=n(1)where=/
Fromthiswecangettheaverages:
N=/(1)
T=N/=/(1)=1/()
1
0
1/m
m
N
T
54
Example: How Delay Scales with

Bandwidth
Occupancyanddelayformulas
N=/(1)
T=1/()
Assume:
Trafficarrivalrateisdoubled
Systemtransmissioncapacityisdoubled
Then:
=/
Queuesizesstayatthesamelevel(staysthesame)
Packetdelayiscutinhalf(andaredoubled
Aconclusion:Inhighspeednetworks
propagationdelayincreasesinimportancerelativetodelay
buffersizeandpacketlossmaystillbeaproblem
55
M/M/m, M/M/ System

SameasM/M/1,butithasm(or)servers
InM/M/m,thepacketattheheadofthequeuemoves
toservicewhenaserverbecomesfree
Qualitativeresult
Delayincreasestoas=/mapproaches1
Thereareanalyticalformulasfortheoccupancy
probabilitiesandaveragedelayofthesesystems
56
Finite Buffer Systems: M/M/m/k

TheM/M/m/ksystem
SameasM/M/m,butthereisbufferspaceforatmostk
packets.Packetsarrivingatafullbufferaredropped
Formulasforaveragedelay,steadystateoccupancy
probabilities,andlossprobability
TheM/M/m/msystemisusedwidelytosize
telephoneorcircuitswitchingsystems
57
Characteristics of M/M/. Systems

Advantage:Simpleanalyticalformulas
Disadvantages:
ThePoissonassumptionmaybeviolated
Theexponentialtransmissiontimedistributionisan
approximationatbest
Interarrivalandpackettransmissiontimesmaybe
dependent(particularlyinthenetworkcore)
Headofthelineassumptionprecludesheterogeneousinput
trafficwithpriorities(hardorsoft)
58
M/G/1 System
SameasM/M/1butthepackettransmissiontime
distributionisgeneral,withgivenmean1/and
variance2
Utilizationfactor=/
PollaczekKinchineformulafor
Averagetimeinqueue=(2+1/2)/2(1)
Averagedelay=1/+(2+1/2)/2(1)
Theformulasforthesteadystateoccupancy
probabilitiesaremorecomplicated
Insight:As2increases,delayincreases
59
G/G/1 System
SameasM/G/1butnowthepacketinterarrivaltime
distributionisalsogeneral,withmeanand
variance2
WestillassumeFIFOandindependentinterarrival
timesandpackettransmissiontimes
Heavytrafficapproximation:
Averagetimeinqueue~(2+2)/2(1)
Becomesincreasinglyaccurateas
60
Demo: M/G/1
Packetinterarrivaltimes
exponential(0.02)sec
Packetsize
1250bytes
(10000bits)
Capacity
1Mbps
Packetsizedistribution:
exponential
constant
lognormal
Whatistheaveragedelayandqueuesize?
61
Demo: M/G/1 Analytical Results

PacketSize
Distribution
DelayT(sec)
QueueSize(packets)
Exponential
mean=10000
variance =1.0*108
0.02
1.0
Constant
mean=10000
variance=N/A
0.015
0.75
Lognormal
mean=10000
variance=9.0*108
0.06
3.0
62
Demo: M/G/1 Simulation Results

AverageDelay(sec)
AverageQueueSize(packets)
63
Demo: M/G/1 Limitations

Applicationtrafficmixnotmemoryless
Video
constantpacketinterarrivals
Http
burstytraffic
Delay
PKformula
Simulation
64
Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Preemptivevs.nonpreemptive
Cyclic,WFQ,PQsystems
Demo:Simulationresults
Networksofqueues
65
Non-preemptive Priority Systems

Wedistinguishbetweendifferentclassesoftraffic(flows)
Nonpreemptivepriority:packetundertransmissionisnot
preemptedbyapacketofhigherpriority
PKformulafordelaygeneralizes
Transmission
Class
Class
Class123Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Interm.
High
Low
Line
Priority
Priority
Priority
66
Cyclic Service Systems

Multipleflows,eachwithitsownqueue
Fairsystem:Eachflowgetsaccesstothetransmissionlinein
turn
Severalpossibleassumptionsabouthowmanypacketseach
flowcantransmitwhenitgetsaccess
FormulasfordelayunderM/G/1typeassumptionsare
available
Transmission
Class
3
2
1
Arrivals
Line
67
Weighted Fair Queuing

Acombinationofpriorityandcyclicservice
Noexactanalyticalformulasareavailable
68
Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Networksofqueues
ViolationofM/M/.assumptions
Effectsondelaysandtrafficshaping
Analyticalapproximations
69
Two Queues in Series

Firstqueueshapesthetrafficintosecondqueue
Arrivaltimesandpacketlengthsarecorrelated
M/M/1andM/G/1formulasyieldsignificanterrorforsecond
queue
FirstQueue
SecondQueue
Time
Time
70
Two bottlenecks in series

Exponential
interarrivals
Bottleneck
Delay
Bottleneck
Noqueuing
delay
71
Approximations
Kleinrockindependenceapproximation
Performadelaycalculationineachqueueindependentlyofother
queues
Addtheresults(includingpropagationdelay)
Note:Intheprecedingexample,theKleinrockindependence
approximationoverestimatesthequeuingdelayby100%
Tendstobemoreaccurateinnetworkswithlotsoftraffic
mixing,e.g.,nodesservingmanyrelativelysmallflowsfrom
severaldifferentlocations
72
Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Networksofqueues
Hybridsimulation
Explicitvs.aggregatedtraffic
ConceptualFramework
Demo:PQandWFQwithaggregatedtraffic
73
Basic Concepts of Hybrid Simulation

Aimstocombinethebestofanalyticalresultsandsimulation
Achievesignificantgaininsimulationspeedwithlittlelossof
accuracy
Dividesthetrafficthroughanodeintoexplicitand
background
Explicittrafficissimulatedaccurately
Backgroundtrafficisaggregated
Theinteractionofexplicitandbackgroundismodeledeither
analyticallyorthroughafastsimulation(oracombination)
Explicit
Background
74
Explicit Traffic
Modeledindetail,includingtheeffectsofvariousprotocols
Eachpacketsarrivalanddeparturetimesarerecorded(together
withotherdataofinterest,e.g.,loss,etc.)alongeachlinkthatit
traverses
Departuretimesatalinkarethearrivaltimesatthenextlink(plus
propagationdelay)
Objective:Ateachlink,giventhearrivaltimes(andthepacket
lengths),determinethedeparturetimes
.. .
Time
a
d
Delay
Departure
Arrival
times
times
at aatlink
the link
1
4
2
3
75
Aggregated Traffic
Simplifiedmodeling
Wedontkeeptrackofindividualpackets,onlyworkloadcounts
(numberofpacketsorbytes)
Wegenerateworkloadcounts
byprobabilistic/analyticalmodeling,or
bysimplifiedsimulation
Aggregated(orbackground)trafficislocal(perlink)
Shapingeffectsarecomplextoincorporate
Somedependencesbetweenexplicitandbackgroundtraffic
alongachainoflinksarecomplicatedandareignored
76
Hybrid Simulation (FIFO Links):

Conceptual Framework
Giventhearrivaltimeakofthekthexplicitpacket
Generatetheworkloadwkfoundinqueuebythekthpacket
Fromakandwkgeneratethedeparturetimeofthekthpacketas
DepartureTimedk=ak+wk+sk
th
whereskisthetransmissiontimeofthek
packet
ARRIVAL TIMES
Explicit
aK
wK
Explicit
a K+1
w K+1
Time
Background
Explicit
Background
Explicit
d K = aK + wK + sK
DEPARTURE TIMES
77
Simulating the Background Traffic Effects

Useatrafficdescriptorforthebackgroundtraffic(e.g.,carried
byspecialpackets)
Trafficdescriptorincludes:
Trafficvolumeinformation(e.g.,packets/sec,bits/sec)
Probabilitydistributionofinterarrivaltimes
Probabilitydistributionofpacketlengths
Timeintervalofvalidityofthedescriptor
Generatewkusingoneofseveralideasandcombinations
thereof
Successivesampling(forFIFOcase)
Steadystatequeuelengthdistribution(ifwecangetit)
Simplifiedsimulation(microsimappliestocomplexqueuing
disciplines)
78
Hybrid Simulation (FIFO Case)

CriticalQuestion:Givenarrivaltimesakandak+1,workloadwk,andbackground
trafficdescriptor,howdowefindwk+1?
Arrival times/Workload found

a1
w1
a2
w2
d1 = a1 + w1 + s1
a3
.
.
.
w
3
d2 = a2 + w2 + s2
.. .
Time
d3 = a3 + w3 + s3
Departure times
Note:wk+1consistsofwkandtwomoreterms:
Backgroundarrivalsinintervalak+1ak
(Minus)transmittedworkloadinintervalak+1ak
Mustcalculate/simulatethetwoterms
Thefirsttermissimulatedbasedonthetrafficdescriptorofthebackgroundtraffic
Thesecondtermiseasilycalculatedifthequeueiscontinuouslybusyinak+1ak
79
Short Interval Case (Easy Case)

Shortintervalak+1ak(i.e.,ak+1<dk)
Queueisbusycontinuouslyinak+1ak
Sowk+1isquicklysimulated
Samplethebackgroundtrafficarrivaldistributiontosimulatethenew
workloadarrivalsinak+1ak
Dotheaccounting(addtowkandsubtractthetransmittedworkloadin
ak+1ak)
Short Interval
wk+1 = wk + (New bkg arrivals) - (Old bkg transmissions)
a k w k a k+1 w k+1
.. .
dk
Time
d k+1
80
Long Interval Case

Longintervalak+1ak(i.e.,ak+1>dk)
Queuemaybeidleduringportionsoftheintervala k+1ak
Needtogenerate/simulate
Thenewarrivalsinak+1ak
Thelengthsofthebusyperiodsandtheidleperiods
Canbedonebysamplingthebackgroundarrivaldistributionineachbusy
period
Time
Long
a
w
d
Idle
Busy
Periods
Periods
Interval
k Otheralternativesarepossible
k+1
kk+1
.. .
81
Steady-State Queue Length Distribution

Iftheintervalbetweentwosuccessiveexplicitpacketsisvery
long,wecanassumethatthequeuefoundbythesecond
packetisinsteadystate
So,wecanobtainwk+1bysamplingthesteadystate
distribution
Appliestocaseswherethesteadystatedistributioncanbe
foundorcanbereasonablyapproximated
M/M/1andotherM/M/.Queues
SomeM/G/.systems
82
Micro Simulation: Conceptual Framework

Handlescomplexqueuingsystems
Micropacketsaregeneratedtorepresenttrafficloadwithinthecontext
ofthequeueonly(i.e.,theyarenottransmittedtoanyexternallinks)
Forlongintervals,whereconvergencetoasteadystateislikely
Trytodetectconvergenceduringthemicrosim
Estimatesteadystatequeuelengthdistribution
Samplethesteadystatedistributiontoestimatewk+1
Microsimspeedsupthesimulationwithoutsacrificing
accuracy
Microsimprovidesageneralframework
Appliestononstationarybackgroundtraffic
AppliestononFIFOservicemodels(withpropermodification)
83
Examples of Applications
Analytical Modeling
Discrete-Event Simulation
Hybrid DES
with Explicit
DES only with
and
Explicit Traffic
Background
Traffic
M/G/./. &
G/G/./.
FIFO
Analysis
M/G/./. &
G/G/./.
Priority
Analysis
Decomposition
with Kleinrock
Independence
Assumption
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Using QoS to differentiate service levels for

the same type of traffic
N/A
Yes (loss of
accuracy)
N/A
Yes
Yes
Using QoS to support different requirements

for different application types given as a
detailed study of setting Cisco Router
queueing parameters
N/A
Highly
approximate
N/A
Yes
Yes
General network model extending the

previous QoS queueing model
N/A
Hop-by-hop
Analysis (loss
of accuacy)
Reduction of the general model to a

representative end-to-end path
N/A
Hop-by-hop
Analysis (loss
of accuacy)
Analysis Scenarios
Single Link with FIFO Service

Best Effort Service for Standard Data Traffic
Best Effort Service for LRD/Self-Similar
Behavior Traffic
"Chancing It" with Best Effort Service for
Voice, Video and Data
Single Link with QoS-Based Queueing
Network of Queues
Yes (some loss of

Yes (Run time a
accuracy - e.g., traffic function of network
shaping)
complexity)
Yes [Fast with

minimal loss of
accuracy]
Yes (Run time a

function of network
complexity)
Yes [Fast with

minimal loss of
accuracy]
N/A
84
Demo End-to-end Delay: Baseline Network
Trafficmodeledas
1)Explicittraffic
2)Backgroundtraffic
85
Target Flow: ETE delay as a function of ToS
Targetflow:SeattleHoustonmodeledusingexplicittraffic
VaryingitsTypeofService(ToS)
BestEffort(0)
StreamingMultimedia(4)
86
Explicit Simulation Results for Target Flow

Totaltrafficvolume
500Mbps
Timemodeled
35minutes
Simulationduration
31hours
87
Hybrid Simulation Results for Target Flow

Totaltrafficvolume
500Mbps
Timemodeled
35minutes
Simulationduration
14minutes
88
Comparison: Hybrid vs Explicit Simulation
89
References
Networking
BertsekasandGallager,DataNetworks,PrenticeHall,1992
DeviceQueuingImplementations
Vegesna,IPQualityofService,Ciscopress.com,2001
http://www.juniper.net/techcenter/techpapers/200020.pdf
ProbabilityandQueuingModels
BertsekasandTsitsiklis,IntroductiontoProbability,AthenaScientific,2002,
http://www.athenasc.com/probbook.html
Cohen,TheSingleServerQueue,NorthHolland,1992
Takagi,QueuingAnalysis:AFoundationofPerformanceEvaluation.(3
Volumes),NorthHolland,1991
GrossandHarris,FundamentalsofQueuingTheory,Wiley,1985
Cooper,IntroductiontoQueuingTheory,CEEPress,1981
OPNETHybridSimulationandMicroSimulation
SeeCaseStudiespapersin
http://secure.opnet.com/services/muc/mtdlogis_cse_stdies_81.html
90

OPNET Full Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

OPNET Full Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPNET Full Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Using QoS to differentiate service levels for

Using QoS to support different requirements

General network model extending the

Reduction of the general model to a

Single Link with FIFO Service

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Yes (some loss of

Yes [Fast with

Yes (Run time a

Yes [Fast with

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Queuing System Concepts:

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Stability and Steady-State

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Explanation of Littles Law

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Delay is Caused by Packet Interference

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Burstiness Causes Interference

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Different Burstiness Levels at Same Packet Rate

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Packet Length Variation Causes

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

High Utilization Exacerbates Interference

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Variable packet sizes

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.