[PPT] - Survey of Concepts for QoS Improvements via SDN Atanas Mirchev PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Survey of Concepts for QoS Improvements via SDN

Atanas Mirchev

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Department for Computer Science Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

April 9, 2015

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 1

SLIDE 2

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Outline

Motivation Introduction to SDN and QoS Overview of existing QoS approaches Resource reservation Per-flow path optimization Enqueuing of packets Policy enforcement Framework comparison and assessment Concluding remarks

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 2

SLIDE 3

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Motivation

◮ Traditional approaches to providing Quality of Service for

single services or specific tenants are limited and inflexible [4]

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 3

SLIDE 4

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Motivation

◮ Traditional approaches to providing Quality of Service for

single services or specific tenants are limited and inflexible [4]

◮ A scalable solution is needed that allows for fine-grained

traffic tuning

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 3

SLIDE 5

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Motivation

◮ Traditional approaches to providing Quality of Service for

single services or specific tenants are limited and inflexible [4]

◮ A scalable solution is needed that allows for fine-grained

traffic tuning

◮ Software Defined Networking (SDN) brings a lot of

freedom and monitoring possibilities [5] [2]

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 3

SLIDE 6

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Software Defined Networking

◮ Without SDN each

forwarding device has to be configured separately

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 4

SLIDE 7

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Software Defined Networking

◮ Without SDN each

forwarding device has to be configured separately

◮ SDN introduces a control

plane, decoupled from the forwarding plane

Figure: Simplified representation

f the SDN architecture

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 4

SLIDE 8

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Software Defined Networking

◮ Without SDN each

forwarding device has to be configured separately

◮ SDN introduces a control

plane, decoupled from the forwarding plane

◮ the SDN controller is

centralized

Figure: Simplified representation

f the SDN architecture

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 4

SLIDE 9

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Quality of Service

Figure: Quality of Service is based

n priorities

◮ QoS consists of all quality

aspects of data transmission (response time, jitter, interrupts, etc.)

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 5

SLIDE 10

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Quality of Service

Figure: Quality of Service is based

n priorities

◮ QoS consists of all quality

aspects of data transmission (response time, jitter, interrupts, etc.)

◮ Application flows need to

be differentiated and assigned priorities

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 5

SLIDE 11

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Quality of Service

Figure: Quality of Service is based

n priorities

◮ QoS consists of all quality

aspects of data transmission (response time, jitter, interrupts, etc.)

◮ Application flows need to

be differentiated and assigned priorities

◮ Defining policies should be

a simple task

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 5

SLIDE 12

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Traditional approaches to QoS

◮ Integrated Services : fine-grained but not well scalable ◮ Differentiated Services: scalable but coarse-grained (only 8

classes of flows in the DiffServ field, part of the IP header)

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 6

SLIDE 13

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

SDN-enabled approaches

Figure: QoS via SDN

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 7

SLIDE 14

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Resource reservation Frameworks of this type consist of:

◮ Flow classifier (considers any of DiffServ field, 5-Tuple,

Port number)

◮ Rate shaper - installs rules for each classified flow type

Example frameworks:

◮ FlowQoS - small scale framework for home routers [3] ◮ EuQoS - large scale, adaptable to the current Internet,

differentiates only tenant flows [4]

◮ Princeton - large scale, proposes an adaptive flow

aggregator for application flows with similar priority [6]

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 8

SLIDE 15

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Per-flow path optimization

◮ dynamic placement of high priority flows on QoS

guaranteed routes

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 9

SLIDE 16

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Per-flow path optimization

◮ dynamic placement of high priority flows on QoS

guaranteed routes

◮ the path determination is done using the overall network

state obtained by the controller

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 9

SLIDE 17

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Per-flow path optimization

◮ dynamic placement of high priority flows on QoS

guaranteed routes

◮ the path determination is done using the overall network

state obtained by the controller

◮ scalability issues are expected

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 9

SLIDE 18

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Per-flow path optimization

◮ dynamic placement of high priority flows on QoS

guaranteed routes

◮ the path determination is done using the overall network

state obtained by the controller

◮ scalability issues are expected ◮ OpenQoS [2] is a framework representing this class

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 9

SLIDE 19

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Enqueuing of packets

◮ the standard queue type in OpenFlow 1.3 is FIFO [7] ◮ in a lot of cases, putting packets with higher priority in front

is beneficial (e.g. congested node)

◮ QoSFlow[7] is a framework that creates a separate bucket

for each priority and sends the packages via a Round Robin approach

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 10

SLIDE 20

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Policy enforcement

◮ a robust approach for applying predefined SLA

(Service-level Agreements) to the network is required, most of the traditional technologies are proprietary

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 11

SLIDE 21

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Policy enforcement

◮ a robust approach for applying predefined SLA

(Service-level Agreements) to the network is required, most of the traditional technologies are proprietary

◮ SDN represents the possibility of a single standardized API

for configuring policies

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 11

SLIDE 22

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Policy enforcement

◮ a robust approach for applying predefined SLA

(Service-level Agreements) to the network is required, most of the traditional technologies are proprietary

◮ SDN represents the possibility of a single standardized API

for configuring policies

◮ the framework PolicyCop [5] utilizes the Northbound API

f an SDN controller to define policies in a standard way,

which are then enforced on the forwarding plane

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 11

SLIDE 23

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Framework comparison and assessment FlowQoS [3]: Pros:

◮ small framework which

every user could apply at home

◮ focus on multimedia

streaming Cons:

◮ not a generalized solution

for the Internet

◮ lack of tests and thus any

performance figures

◮ no performance

guarantees

◮ prototype

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 12

SLIDE 24

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Framework comparison and assessment EuQoS [4]: Pros:

◮ provides an API for the

existing DiffServ Brokers

◮ explicitly supports failure

recovery

◮ perfectly compatible with

BGP and OSPF routing

◮ tested in OFELIA testbed

facility with 100 nodes Cons:

◮ the framework only

differentiates tenant (or business client) flows, but it cannot identify different application flows

◮ loss of best-effort packets ◮ prototype

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 13

SLIDE 25

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Framework comparison and assessment OpenQoS [2]: Pros:

◮ chooses an optimal path

(via an heuristic) for an arbitrary high-priority flow

◮ minimizes packet loss and

latency for best-effort traffic

◮ considers the current state

f the network (e.g.

congestions) Cons:

◮ constant need for network

monitoring, hence some scalability issues

◮ small testbed (3 Pronto

3290 switches)

◮ prototype

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 14

SLIDE 26

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Framework comparison and assessment QoSFlow [7]: Pros:

◮ improves the regular FIFO

queuing by utilizing a round robin sending strategy

◮ average of 48.7 % QoE

gain during testing Cons:

◮ limited to 8 queues per

switch

◮ requires all switches to run

a version of Linux instead

f the standard firmware

◮ small testbed : up to 3

TPLink 1043ND

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 15

SLIDE 27

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Framework comparison and assessment PolicyCop [5]: Pros:

◮ introduces a standard way

to define policies at a higher abstraction level

◮ ensures that policies are

being kept

◮ layered architecture, easily

extensible framework Cons:

◮ constant monitoring of the

forwarding plane to ensure that policies are being kept leads to overhead

◮ small testbed (5 Open

vSwitches, 4 hosts)

◮ prototype

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 16

SLIDE 28

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Concluding remarks

◮ All of the proposed solutions are prototypes, most of them

nly tested with a small amount of forwarding devices

◮ while EuQoS does show some promise for scalability, it is

restricted to classifying only customer flows

◮ providing QoS via SDN remains a daunting task, but there

are a lot of possibilities that still need to be explored

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 17

SLIDE 29

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Questions?

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 18

SLIDE 30

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Sources

◮ Diego Kreutz, Fernando Ramos, Christian Rothenberg, Siamak

Azodolmolky, Steve Uhlig: Software Defined Networking: A Comprehensive Survey, page 25

◮ Hilmi Egilmez, S. Dane, K. Bagci, A. Tekalp: OpenQoS:

OpenFlow controller design for multimedia delivery with end-to- end Quality of Service over Software-Defined Networks

◮ M. Seddiki, Muhammad Shahbaz: FlowQoS: QoS for the Rest

f Us

◮ S. Sharma, D. Staessens, D. Colle, D. Palma: Implementing

Quality of Service for the Software Defined Networking Enabled Future Internet Budapest conference, 01-03.09.2014

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 19

SLIDE 31

Chair for Network Architectures and Services Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen

Sources

◮ M. F

. Bari et al., PolicyCop: An Autonomic QoS Policy Enforcement Framework for Software Defined Networks, 2013 IEEE SDN for Future Networks and Services (SDN4FNS)

◮ Wonho Kim et al. Automated and Scalable QoS Control for

Network Convergence

◮ A. Ishimori et al. Control of Multiple Packet Schedulers for

Improving QoS on OpenFlow/SDN Networking, UC, Los Angeles, USA, Second European Workshop on Software Defined Networking 2013

Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen – Chair for Network Architectures and Services 20