Delay Bounds in Tree Networks with DiffServ Architecture

We investigate the end-to-end delay bounds in large scale networks with Differentiated services (DiffServ) architecture. It has been generally believed that networks with DiffServ architectures can guarantee the end-to-end delay for packets of the highest priority class, only in lightly utilized cases. We focus on tree networks with DiffServ architecture and obtain a closed formula for delay bounds for such networks. We further show that, in tree networks with DiffServ architecture, the delay bounds for highest priority packets exist regardless of the level of network utilization. These bounds are quadratically proportional to the maximum hop counts in heavily utilized networks; and are linearly proportional to the maximum hop counts in lightly utilized networks. We argue that based on these delay bounds DiffServ architecture is able to support real time applications even for a large tree network. Considering that tree networks, especially the Ethernet networks, are being adopted more than ever for access networks and for provider networks as well, this conclusion is quite encouraging for real-time applications. Throughout the paper we use Latency-Rate (LR) server model, with which it has been proved that First In First Out (FIFO) and Strict Priority schedulers are LR servers to each flows in certain conditions.

[1]  David L. Black,et al.  An Architecture for Differentiated Service , 1998 .

[2]  A. Kortebi,et al.  Cross-protect: implicit service differentiation and admission control , 2004, 2004 Workshop on High Performance Switching and Routing, 2004. HPSR..

[3]  Jean-Yves Le Boudec,et al.  Delay Bounds in a Network with Aggregate Scheduling , 2000, QofIS.

[4]  Yuming Jiang Delay bounds for a network of guaranteed rate servers with FIFO aggregation , 2002, Comput. Networks.

[5]  Anujan Varma,et al.  Latency-rate servers: a general model for analysis of traffic scheduling algorithms , 1998, TNET.

[6]  Ahmed K. Elhakeem,et al.  Modeling and simulation of traffic aggregation based SIP over MPLS network architecture , 2005, 38th Annual Simulation Symposium.

[7]  Wei Sun,et al.  End-to-end delay bounds for traffic aggregates under guaranteed-rate scheduling algorithms , 2005, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[8]  Vivek K. Goyal,et al.  RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video , 1996, RFC.

[9]  P. P. White,et al.  RSVP and integrated services in the Internet: a tutorial , 1997, IEEE Commun. Mag..

[10]  Hyunsurk Ryu,et al.  Effect of Flow Aggregation on the Maximum End-to-End Delay , 2006, HPCC.

[11]  Gunnar Karlsson,et al.  Quality of Future Internet Services , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[12]  S. Oueslati,et al.  A new direction for quality of service: flow-aware networking , 2005, Next Generation Internet Networks, 2005.

[13]  Henning Schulzrinne,et al.  RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications , 1996, RFC.

[14]  Parameswaran Ramanathan,et al.  Proportional differentiated services: delay differentiation and packet scheduling , 2002, TNET.

[15]  Abhay Parekh,et al.  A generalized processor sharing approach to flow control in integrated services networks: the single-node case , 1993, TNET.

[16]  George Varghese,et al.  Efficient fair queueing using deficit round-robin , 1996, TNET.

[17]  Ram Krishnan,et al.  Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services , 2002, RFC.

[18]  Jorge Arturo Cobb Preserving quality of service guarantees in spite of flow aggregation , 2002, TNET.

[19]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture : an Overview Status of this Memo , 1994 .