[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 RFC 3662

Differentiated Services Working                                 R. Bless
Group                                                 Univ. of Karlsruhe
Internet-Draft                                                K. Nichols
Expires: Mai 20, 2003                                      Packet Design
                                                               K. Wehrle
                                                 Univ. of Karlsruhe/ICSI
                                                       November 19, 2002


     A Lower Effort Per-Domain Behavior for Differentiated Services
                     draft-bless-diffserv-pdb-le-01

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on Mai 20, 2003.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document proposes a differentiated services per-domain behavior
   (PDB) whose traffic may be "starved" (although starvation is not
   strictly required) in a properly functioning network.  This is in
   contrast to the Internet's "best-effort" or "normal Internet traffic"
   model where prolonged starvation indicates network problems.  In this
   sense the proposed PDB's traffic is forwarded with a "lower" priority
   than the normal "best-effort" Internet traffic, thus the PDB is
   called "Lower Effort" (LE).  Use of this PDB permits a network



Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   operator to strictly limit the effect of its traffic on "best-
   effort"/"normal" or all other Internet traffic.  This document gives
   some example uses, but does not propose constraining the PDB's use to
   any particular type of traffic.

1. Description of the Lower Effort PDB

   This document proposes a differentiated services per-domain behavior
   [RFC3086] called "Lower Effort" (LE) which is intended for traffic of
   sufficiently low value (where "value" may be interpreted in any
   useful way by the network operator) that any other traffic should
   take precedence over it in consumption of network link bandwidth.
   One possible interpretation of "low value" traffic is its low
   priority in time, which does not necessarily imply that it is
   generally of minor importance.  From this point of view it can be
   considered as a network equivalent to a background priority for
   processes in an operating system.  There may or may not be memory
   (buffer) resources allocated for this type of traffic.

   Some networks carry traffic for which delivery is considered
   optional; that is, packets of this type of traffic ought to consume
   network resources only when no other traffic is present.
   Alternatively, the effect of this type of traffic on all other
   network traffic is strictly limited.  This is distinct from "best-
   effort" (BE) traffic since the network makes no commitment to deliver
   LE packets.  In contrast, BE traffic receives an implied "good faith"
   commitment of at least some available network resources.  This
   document proposes a Lower Effort Differentiated Services per-domain
   behavior (LE PDB) [RFC3086] for handling this "optional" traffic in a
   differentiated services domain.

   There is no intrinsic reason to limit the applicability of the LE PDB
   to any particular application or type of traffic.  It is intended as
   an additional tool for administrators in engineering networks.

   Note: where not otherwise defined, terminology used in this document
   is defined in [RFC2474].

2. Applicability

   A Lower Effort (LE) PDB is for sending extremely non-critical traffic
   across a DS domain or DS region.  There should be an expectation that
   packets of the LE PDB may be delayed or dropped when any other
   traffic is present.  Use of the LE PDB might assist a network
   operator in moving certain kinds of traffic or users to off-peak
   times.  Alternatively, or in addition, packets can be designated for
   the LE PDB when the goal is to protect all other packet traffic from
   competition with the LE aggregate while not completely banning LE



Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   traffic from the network.  An LE PDB should not be used for a
   customer's "normal internet" traffic nor should packets be
   "downgraded" to the LE PDB used as a substitute for dropping packets
   that ought simply to be dropped as unauthorized.  The LE PDB is
   expected to have applicability in networks that have at least some
   unused capacity at some times of day.

   This is a PDB that allows networks to protect themselves from
   selected types of traffic rather than giving a selected traffic
   aggregate preferential treatment.  Moreover, it may also exploit all
   unused resources from other PDBs.

3. Technical Specification

3.1 Classification and Traffic Conditioning

   There are no required traffic profiles governing rate and bursts of
   packets beyond the limits imposed by the ingress link.  It is not
   necessary to limit the LE aggregate using edge techniques since its
   PHB is configured such that packets of the aggregate will be dropped
   in the network if no forwarding resources are available.  The
   differentiated services architecture [RFC2475] allows packets to be
   marked upstream of the DS domain or at the DS domain's edge.  When
   packets arrive pre-marked with the DSCP used by the LE PDB, it should
   not be necessary for the DS domain boundary to police that marking;
   further (MF) classification for such packets would only be required
   if there was some reason that the packets should be marked with a
   different DSCP.

   If there is not an agreement on DSCP marking with the upstream domain
   for a DS domain using the LE PDB the boundary must include a
   classifier that selects the appropriate LE target group of packets
   out of all arriving packets and steers them to a marker which sets
   the appropriate DSCP.  No other traffic conditioning is required.

3.2 PHB configuration

   Either a Class Selector (CS) PHB [RFC2474], an Experimental/Local Use
   (EXP/LU) PHB [RFC2474], or an Assured Forwarding (AF) PHB [RFC2597]
   may be used as the PHB for the LE traffic aggregate.  This document
   does not specify the exact DSCP to use inside a domain, but instead
   specifies the necessary properties of the PHB selected by the DSCP.
   If a CS PHB is used, Class Selector 1 (DSCP=001000) is suggested.

   The PHB used by the LE aggregate inside a DS domain should be
   configured so that its packets are forwarded onto the node output
   link when the link would otherwise be idle; conceptually, this is the
   behavior of a weighted round-robin scheduler with a weight of zero.



Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   An operator might choose to configure a very small link share for the
   LE aggregate and still achieve the desired goals.  That is, if the
   output link scheduler permits, a small fixed rate might be assigned
   to the PHB, but the behavior beyond that configured rate should be
   that packets are forwarded only when the link would otherwise be
   idle.  This behavior could be obtained, for example, by using a CBQ
   [CBQ] scheduler with a small share and with borrowing permited.  A
   PHB that allows packets of the LE aggregate to send more than the
   configured rate when packets of other traffic aggregates are waiting
   for the link is not recommended.

   If a CS PHB is used, note that this configuration will violate the
   "SHOULD" of section 4.2.2.2 of RFC 2474 [RFC2474] since CS1 will have
   a less timely forwarding than CS0.  An operator's goal of providing
   an LE PDB is sufficient cause for violating the SHOULD.  If an AF PHB
   is used, it must be configured and a DSCP assigned such that it does
   not violate the "MUST" of paragraph three of section 2 of RFC 2597
   [RFC2597] which provides for a "minimum amount of forwarding
   resources".

4. Attributes

   The ingress and egress flow of the LE aggregate can be measured but
   there are no absolute or statistical attributes that arise from the
   PDB definition.  A particular network operator may configure the DS
   domain in such a way that a statistical metric can be associated with
   that DS domain.  When the DS domain is known to be heavily congested
   with traffic of other PDBs, a network operator should expect to see
   no (or very few) packets of the LE PDB egress from the domain.  When
   there is no other traffic present, the proportion of the LE aggregate
   that successfully crosses the domain should be limited only by the
   capacity of the network relative to the ingress LE traffic aggregate.

5. Parameters

   None required.

6. Assumptions

   A properly functioning network.

7. Example uses

   o  Multimedia applications [this example edited from Yoram Bernet]:

         Many network managers want to protect their networks from
         certain applications, in particular, from multimedia
         applications that typically use such non-adaptive protocols as



Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


         UDP.

         Most of the focus in quality-of-service is on achieving
         attributes that are better than Best Effort.  These approaches
         can provide network managers with the ability to control the
         amount of multimedia traffic that is given this improved
         performance with excess relegated to Best Effort.  This excess
         traffic can wreak havoc with network resources even when it is
         relegated to Best Effort because it is non-adaptive and because
         it can be significant in volume and duration.  These
         characteristics permit it to seize network resources, thereby
         compromising the performance of other, more important
         applications that are included in the Best Effort traffic
         aggregate but that use adaptive protocols (e.g., TCP).  As a
         result, network managers often simply refuse to allow
         multimedia applications to be deployed in resource constrained
         parts of their network.

         The LE PDB enables a network manager to allow the deployment of
         multimedia applications without losing control of network
         resources.  A limited amount of multimedia traffic may (or may
         not) be assigned to PDBs with attributes that are better than
         Best Effort.  Excess multimedia traffic can be prevented from
         wreaking havoc with network resources by forcing it to the LE
         PDB.

   o  For Netnews and other "bulk mail" of the Internet.

   o  For "downgraded" traffic from some other PDB when this does not
      violate the operational objectives of the other PDB or the overall
      network.  As noted in section 2, LE should not be used for the
      general case of downgraded traffic, but may be used by design,
      e.g.  when multicast is used with a value-added DS-service and
      consequently the Neglected Reserviation Subtree problem [NRS]
      arises.

   o  For content distribution, Napster traffic, and the like.

   o  For traffic caused by world-wide web search engines while they
      gather information from web servers.


8. Experiences

   The authors solicit further experiences for this section.  Results
   from simulations are presented and discussed in Appendix A.





Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


9. Security Considerations for LE PDB

   There are no specific security exposures for this PDB.  See the
   general security considerations in [RFC2474] and [RFC2475].

10. History of the LE PDB

   The previous name of this PDB, "bulk handling", was loosely based on
   the United States' Postal Service term for very low priority mail,
   sent at a reduced rate: it denotes a lower-cost delivery where the
   items are not handled with the same care or delivered with the same
   timeliness as items with first-class postage.  Finally, the name was
   changed to "lower effort", because the authors and other DiffServ
   Working Group members believe that the name should be more generic in
   order to not imply constraints on the PDB's use to a particular type
   of traffic (namely that of bulk data).

   The notion of having something "lower than Best Effort" was raised in
   the Diffserv Working Group, most notably by Roland Bless and Klaus
   Wehrle in their Internet Drafts [LBE] and [LE] and by Yoram Bernet
   for enterprise multimedia applications.  One of its first
   applications was to re-mark packets within multicast groups [NRS].
   Therefore, previous discussions centered on the creation of a new PHB
   which the original authors (Brian Carpenter and Kathleen Nichols)
   believe is not required.  This document was specifically written to
   explain how to get less than Best Effort without a new PHB.

11. Acknowledgments

   Yoram Bernet contributed significant text for the "Examples" section
   of this document and other useful comments that helped in editing.
   Other Diffserv WG members suggested that the LE PDB is needed for
   Napster traffic, particularly at universities.  Special thanks go to
   Milena Neumann for her extensive efforts in performing the
   simulations that are described in Appendix A.

References

   [RFC3086]  Nichols, K. and B. Carpenter, "Definition of
              Differentiated Services Per Domain Behaviors and Rules for
              their Specification", RFC 3086, April 2001.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December
              1998.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.



Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC2597]  Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W. and J. Wroclawski,
              "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.

   [CBQ]      Floyd, S. and V. Jacobson, "Link-sharing and Resource
              Management Models for Packet Networks", IEEE/ACM
              Transactions on Networking, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 365-386,
              August 1995.

   [LBE]      Bless, R. and K. Wehrle, "A Lower Than Best-Effort Per-Hop
              Behavior", draft-bless-diffserv-lbe-phb-00 (work in
              progress), September 1999.

   [LE]       Bless, R. and K. Wehrle, "A Limited Effort Per-Hop
              Behavior", draft-bless-diffserv-le-phb-00 (work in
              progress), February 2001.

   [SimKIDS]  Wehrle, K., Reber, J. and V. Kahmann, "A simulation suite
              for Internet nodes with the ability to integrate arbitrary
              Quality of Service behavior", in Proceedings of
              Communication Networks And Distributed Systems Modeling
              And Simulation Conference (CNDS 2001),  Phoenix (AZ), USA,
              pp. 115-122, January 2001.

   [NRS]      Bless, R. and K. Wehrle, "Group Communication in
              Differentiated Services Networks", in Proceedings of IEEE
              International Workshop  on "Internet QoS", Brisbane,
              Australia, IEEE Press, pp. 618-625, May 2001.


Authors' Addresses

   Roland Bless
   Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
   Zirkel 2
   76128 Karlsruhe
   Germany

   EMail: bless@tm.uka.de
   URI:   http://www.tm.uka.de/~bless/









Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   Kathleen Nichols
   Packet Design
   3400 Hillview Avenue, Building 3
   Palo Alto, CA  94304
   USA

   EMail: nichols@packetdesign.com


   Klaus Wehrle
   Instit. of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
   Zirkel 2, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany    &
   International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
   1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA, 94704, USA

   EMail: klaus@wehrle.com
   URI:   http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~wehrle/


Appendix A. Experiences from a Simulation Model

   The intention of this appendix is to show that a Lower Effort PDB
   with a behavior as described in this document can be realized with
   different implementations and PHBs respectively.  Overall, each of
   these variants show the desired behavior but also minor differences
   in certain traffic load situations.  This comparison could make the
   choice of a realization variant interesting for a network operator.

A.1 Simulation Environment

   The small DiffServ domain shown in Figure 1 was used to simulate the
   LE PDB.  There are three main sources of traffic (S1-S3) depicted on
   the left side of the figure.  Source S1 sends five aggregated TCP
   flows (A1-A5) to the receivers R1-R5 respectively.  Each aggregated
   flow Ax consists of 20 TCP connections, where each aggregate
   experienced a different round trip time between 10ms and 250ms.
   There are two sources of bulk traffic.  B1 consists of 100 TCP
   connections sending as much data as possible to R6 and B2 is a single
   UDP flow also sending as much as possible to R7.












Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   ---------------------------------------------------------------------


                      ...................
                    .                     .                R1
                  .                        .              /
                .                           .            /-R2
               .                             .          /
     S1==**=>[BR1]                          [BR4]==**==>---R3
             . \\                           // .        \
            .   \\                         //   .        \-R4
            .    **                       **     .        \
            .     \\                     //      .         R5
            .      \\                   //       .
   S2=++=>[BR2]-++-[IR1]==**==++==::==[IR2]      .
   (Bulk)   .      //                    \\      .
            .     //                      ::     .
            .    ::                        \\    .
             .  //                          ++  .
              .//                            \\.
    S3==::==>[BR3]                           [BR5]==++==>R6
    (UDP)       .                           . ||
                 .                         .  ||
                   .                      .   ::
                     ....................     ||
                                              VV
                                              R7

            Figure 1: A DiffServ domain with different flows

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------

   In order to show the benefit of using the LE PDB instead of the
   normal Best Effort (BE) PDB [RFC3086], different scenarios are used:

   A) B1 and B2 are not present, i.e. the "normal" situation without
      bulk data present. A1-A5 use the BE PDB.
   B) B1 and B2 use the BE PDB for their traffic, too.
   C) B1 and B2 use LE PDB for their traffic
      with different PHB implementations:
      1) PHB with Priority Queueing
      2) PHB with Weighted Fair Queueing (WFQ)
      3) PHB with Weighted RED (WRED)
      4) PHB with WFQ and RED

   C1) represents the case where there are no allocated resources for
   the LE PDB, i.e.  LE traffic is only forwarded if there are unused
   resources.  In scenarios C2)-C4) a bandwidth share of 10% has been



Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   allocated for the LE PDB.  RED parameters were set to w_q=0.1 and
   max_p=0.2.  In scenario C2) two tail drop queues were used for BE and
   LE and WFQ scheduling was set up with a weight of 9:1 for the ratio
   of BE:LE.  In scenario C3) a total queue length of 200000 bytes was
   used and the following thresholds: min_th_BE=19000, max_th_BE=63333,
   min_th_LE=2346, max_th=7037.  WRED allows to mark packets with BE or
   LE within the same microflow (e.g., letting applications pre-mark
   packets according to their importance) without causing a reordering
   of packets within the microflow.  In scenario C4) each queue had a
   length of 50000 bytes and the same thresholds of min_th=18000 and
   max_th=48000 bytes.  WFQ parameters were the same as in C2).

   The link bandwidth between IR1 and IR2 is limited to 1200 kbit/s,
   thus creating the bottleneck in the network for the following
   situations.  In all situations the 20 TCP connections within each
   aggregated flow Ax (flowing from S1 to Rx) used the Best Effort PDB.
   Sender S2 transmitted bulk flow B1 (consisting of 100 TCP connections
   to R6) with an aggregated rate of 550 kbit/s, whereas the UDP sender
   S3 transmitted with a rate of 50 kbit/s.

   The following four different situations with varying traffic load for
   the Ax flows (at application level) were simulated.

   Situation                   |   I  |  II  |  III |  IV  |
   ----------------------------+------+------+------+------|
   Sender Rate S1 [kbit/s]     | 1200 | 1080 | 1800 |  800 |
   Sender Rate S2 [kbit/s]     |  550 |  550 |  550 |  550 |
   Sender Rate S3 [kbit/s]     |   50 |   50 |   50 |   50 |
   Bandwidth IR1 -> IR2        | 1200 | 1200 | 1200 | 1200 |
   Best Effort Load (S1)       | 100% |  90% | 150% |  67% |
   Total load for link IR1->IR2| 150% | 140% | 200% | 117% |

   In situation I, there are no unused resources left for the B1 and B2
   flows.  In situation II, there is a residual bandwidth of 10% of the
   bottleneck link between IR1 and IR2.  In situation III the traffic
   load of A1-A5 is 50% higher than the bottleneck link capacity.  In
   situation IV, A1-A5 consume only 2/3 of the bottleneck link capacity.
   B1 and B2 require together 50% of the bottleneck link capacity.

   The simulations were performed with the freely available discrete
   event simulation tool OMNeT++ and a suitable set of QoS mechanisms
   [SimKIDS].  Results from the different simulation scenarios are
   discussed in the next section.

A.2 Simulation Results

   QoS parameters listed in the following tables are averaged over the
   first 160s of the transmission.  Results of situation I are shown in



Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   Figure 2.  When the BE PDB is used for transmission of bulk flows B1
   and B2 in case B), one can see that flows A1-A5 throttle their
   sending rate to allow transmission of bulk flows B1 and B2.  In case
   C1) not a single packet is transmitted to the receiver, because all
   packets get dropped within IR1, thereby protecting Ax flows from Bx
   flows.  In case C2) B1 and B2 consume all resources up to the
   configured limit of 10% of the link bandwidth, but not more.  C3)
   also limits the share of B1 and B2 flows, but not as precise as with
   WFQ.  C4) shows slightly higher packet losses for Ax flows due to the
   active queue management.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------


   +-------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
   |                         |        |   Bulk Transfer with PDB:         |
   | QoS Parameter           |   A)   |  B)  |  C)  Lower Effort          |
   |                         |No bulk | Best |  1)     2)     3)      4)  |
   |                  Flows  |transfer|Effort|  PQ  | WFQ  | WRED |RED&WFQ|
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |                |   A1   |    240 |   71 |  240 |  214 |  225 |   219 |
   |                |   A2   |    240 |  137 |  240 |  216 |  223 |   218 |
   |                |   A3   |    240 |  209 |  240 |  224 |  220 |   217 |
   | Throughput     |   A4   |    239 |  182 |  239 |  222 |  215 |   215 |
   | [kbit/s]       |   A5   |    238 |   70 |  238 |  202 |  201 |   208 |
   |                |   B1   |      - |  491 |    0 |   82 |   85 |    84 |
   |                |   B2   |      - |   40 |    0 |   39 |   31 |    38 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |Total Throughput| normal |   1197 |  669 | 1197 | 1078 | 1084 |  1078 |
   | [kbit/s]       | bulk   |      - |  531 |    0 |  122 |  116 |   122 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |                |   A1   |      0 | 19.3 |    0 |  6.3 |  5.7 |   8.6 |
   |                |   A2   |      0 | 17.5 |    0 |  6.0 |  5.9 |   8.9 |
   |                |   A3   |      0 | 10.2 |    0 |  3.2 |  6.2 |   9.1 |
   | Paket Loss     |   A4   |      0 | 12.5 |    0 |  4.5 |  6.6 |   9.3 |
   | [%]            |   A5   |      0 | 22.0 |    0 |  6.0 |  5.9 |   9.0 |
   |                |   B1   |      - | 10.5 |  100 | 33.6 | 38.4 |  33.0 |
   |                |   B2   |      - | 19.6 |  100 | 19.9 | 37.7 |  22.2 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   | Total Packet   | normal |      0 | 14.9 |    0 |  5.2 |  6.1 |   9.0 |
   | Loss Rate [%]  | bulk   |      0 | 11.4 |  100 | 29.5 | 38.2 |  29.7 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   | Transmitted    |        |        |      |      |      |      |       |
   | Data [MByte]   | normal |   21.9 | 12.6 | 21.9 | 19.6 | 20.3 |  20.3 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+

      Figure 2: Situation I - Best Effort traffic uses 100% of the
                          available bandwidth



Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   ---------------------------------------------------------------------

   Results of situation II are shown in Figure 3: In case C1) LE traffic
   gets exactly the 10% residual bandwidth that is not used by the Ax
   flows.  Cases C2) and C4) show similar results compared to C1),
   whereas case C3) also drops packets from flows A1-A5 due to active
   queue management.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------


   +-------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
   |                         |        |   Bulk Transfer with PDB:         |
   | QoS Parameter           |   A)   |  B)  |  C)  Lower Effort          |
   |                         |No bulk | Best |  1)     2)     3)      4)  |
   |                  Flows  |transfer|Effort|  PQ  | WFQ  | WRED |RED&WFQ|
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |                |   A1   |    216 |  193 |  216 |  216 |  211 |   216 |
   |                |   A2   |    216 |  171 |  216 |  216 |  211 |   216 |
   |                |   A3   |    216 |   86 |  216 |  216 |  210 |   216 |
   | Throughput     |   A4   |    215 |  121 |  215 |  215 |  211 |   215 |
   | [kbit/s]       |   A5   |    215 |  101 |  215 |  215 |  210 |   215 |
   |                |   B1   |      - |  488 |   83 |   83 |  114 |    84 |
   |                |   B2   |      - |   39 |   39 |   39 |   33 |    38 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |Total Throughput| normal |   1078 |  672 | 1077 | 1077 | 1053 |  1077 |
   | [kbit/s]       | bulk   |      - |  528 |  122 |  122 |  147 |   122 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+----+-+-------+
   |                |   A1   |      0 |  9.4 |    0 |    0 |  1.8 |     0 |
   |                |   A2   |      0 | 14.6 |    0 |    0 |  2.0 |     0 |
   |                |   A3   |      0 | 22.4 |    0 |    0 |  2.1 |     0 |
   | Paket Loss     |   A4   |      0 | 15.5 |    0 |    0 |  1.8 |     0 |
   | [%]            |   A5   |      0 | 17.4 |    0 |    0 |  1.9 |     0 |
   |                |   B1   |      - | 11.0 | 32.4 | 32.9 | 35.7 |  33.1 |
   |                |   B2   |      - | 21.1 | 20.3 | 20.7 | 34.0 |  22.2 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   | Total Packet   | normal |      0 | 14.9 |    0 |    0 |  1.9 |     0 |
   | Loss Rate [%]  | bulk   |      - | 12.0 | 28.7 | 29.1 | 35.3 |  29.8 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   | Transmitted    |        |        |      |      |      |      |       |
   | Data [MByte]   | normal |   19.8 | 12.8 | 19.8 | 19.8 | 19.5 |  19.8 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+

      Figure 3: Situation II - Best Effort traffic uses 90% of the
                          available bandwidth

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------




Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   Results of simulations for situation III are depicted in Figure 4.
   Due to overload caused by flows A1-A5, their packets get dropped in
   all cases.  Bulk flows B1 and B2 nearly get their maximum throughput
   in case B).  As one would expect, in case C1) all packets from B1 and
   B2 are dropped, in cases C2) and C4) resource consumption of bulk
   data is limited to the configured share of 10%.  Again the WRED
   implementation in C3) is not as accurate as the WFQ variants and lets
   more BE traffic pass through IR1.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------


   +-------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
   |                         |        |   Bulk Transfer with PDB:         |
   | QoS Parameter           |   A)   |  B)  |  C)  Lower Effort          |
   |                         |No bulk | Best |  1)     2)     3)      4)  |
   |                  Flows  |transfer|Effort|  PQ  | WFQ  | WRED |RED&WFQ|
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |                |   A1   |    303 |  136 |  241 |  298 |  244 |   276 |
   |                |   A2   |    316 |  234 |  286 |  299 |  240 |   219 |
   |                |   A3   |    251 |  140 |  287 |  259 |  236 |   225 |
   | Throughput     |   A4   |    168 |   84 |  252 |  123 |  209 |   219 |
   | [kbit/s]       |   A5   |    159 |   82 |  132 |  101 |  166 |   141 |
   |                |   B1   |      - |  483 |    0 |   83 |   73 |    83 |
   |                |   B2   |      - |   41 |    0 |   38 |   31 |    38 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |Total Throughput| normal |   1199 |  676 | 1199 | 1079 | 1096 |  1079 |
   | [kbit/s]       | bulk   |      - |  524 |    0 |  121 |  104 |   121 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |                |   A1   |    9.6 | 17.6 | 12.1 |  9.3 |  8.6 |  12.8 |
   |                |   A2   |    8.5 | 13.6 |  8.4 |  9.8 |  8.1 |  14.5 |
   |                |   A3   |    8.8 | 18.7 |  7.7 | 11.6 |  7.8 |  13.6 |
   | Paket Loss     |   A4   |   14.9 | 22.3 | 11.2 | 18.9 |  8.2 |  12.4 |
   | [%]            |   A5   |   12.8 | 19.0 | 15.6 | 19.7 |  8.3 |  14.3 |
   |                |   B1   |      - | 11.9 |  100 | 32.1 | 39.5 |  33.0 |
   |                |   B2   |      - | 17.3 |  100 | 22.5 | 37.7 |  22.8 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   | Total Packet   | normal |   10.4 | 17.3 | 10.3 | 12.2 |  8.2 |  13.4 |
   | Loss Rate [%]  | bulk   |      - | 12.4 |  100 | 29.1 | 39.0 |  29.9 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   | Transmitted    |        |        |      |      |      |      |       |
   | Data [MByte]   | normal |   22.0 | 12.6 | 22.0 | 20.2 | 20.6 |  20.3 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+

       Figure 4: Situation III - Best Effort traffic load is 150%

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------




Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   In situation IV, 33% or 400 kbit/s are not used by Ax flows and the
   results are listed in Figure 5.  In case B) where bulk data flows B1
   and B2 use the BE PDB, packets of Ax flows are dropped, whereas in
   cases C1)-C4) flows Ax are protected from bulk flows B1 and B2.
   Therefore, by using the LE PDB for Bx flows, the latter get only the
   residual bandwidth of 400 kbit/s but not more.  Packets of Ax flows
   are not affected by Bx traffic in these cases.

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------


   +-------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
   |                         |        |   Bulk Transfer with PDB:         |
   | QoS Parameter           |   A)   |  B)  |  C)  Lower Effort          |
   |                         |No bulk | Best |  1)     2)     3)      4)  |
   |                  Flows  |transfer|Effort|  PQ  | WFQ  | WRED |RED&WFQ|
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |                |   A1   |    160 |  140 |  160 |  160 |  160 |   160 |
   |                |   A2   |    160 |  124 |  160 |  160 |  160 |   160 |
   |                |   A3   |    160 |  112 |  160 |  160 |  160 |   160 |
   | Throughput     |   A4   |    160 |  137 |  160 |  160 |  159 |   160 |
   | [kbit/s]       |   A5   |    159 |  135 |  159 |  159 |  159 |   159 |
   |                |   B1   |      - |  509 |  361 |  362 |  364 |   362 |
   |                |   B2   |      - |   43 |   40 |   39 |   38 |    40 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |Total Throughput| normal |    798 |  648 |  798 |  798 |  797 |   798 |
   | [kbit/s]       | bulk   |      - |  551 |  401 |  401 |  402 |   401 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   |                |   A1   |      0 |  9.2 |    0 |    0 |    0 |     0 |
   |                |   A2   |      0 | 12.2 |    0 |    0 |    0 |     0 |
   |                |   A3   |      0 | 14.0 |    0 |    0 |    0 |     0 |
   | Paket Loss     |   A4   |      0 |  9.3 |    0 |    0 |    0 |     0 |
   | [%]            |   A5   |      0 |  6.6 |    0 |    0 |    0 |     0 |
   |                |   B1   |      - |  7.3 | 21.2 | 21.8 | 25.0 |  21.3 |
   |                |   B2   |      - | 14.3 | 19.4 | 20.7 | 24.5 |  20.7 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   | Total Packet   | normal |      0 | 10.2 |    0 |    0 |    0 |     0 |
   | Loss Rate [%]  | bulk   |      - |  8.0 | 21.0 | 21.7 | 25.0 |  21.2 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+
   | Transmitted    |        |        |      |      |      |      |       |
   | Data [MByte]   | normal |   14.8 | 12.1 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 14.7 |  14.7 |
   +----------------+--------+--------+------+------+------+------+-------+

        Figure 5: Situation IV - Best Effort traffic load is 67%

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------

   In summary, all the different scenarios show that the "normal" BE



Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


   traffic can be protected from traffic in the LE PDB effectively.
   Either no packets get through if no residual bandwidth is left (LE
   traffic is starved), or traffic of the LE PDB can only consume
   resources up to a configurable limit.

   Furthermore, the results substantiate that mass data transfer can
   affect adversely "normal" BE traffic (e.g., 14.9% packet loss in
   situations I and II, even 10.2% in situation IV) in situations
   without using the LE PDB.

   Thus, while all presented variants of realizing the LE PDB meet the
   desired behavior of protecting BE traffic, they also show small
   differences in detail.  So a network operator has the possibility to
   choose a realization method to fit the desired behavior (showing this
   is - after the proof of LE's efficacy - the second designation of
   this appendix).  For instance, if operators want to starve LE traffic
   completely in times of congestion, they could choose PQ.  This causes
   LE traffic to be completely starved and not a single packet would get
   through in case of full load or overload.

   On the other hand, for network operators who want to permit some
   small amount of throughput in the LE PDB, one of the other variants
   would be a better choice.

   Referring to this, the WFQ implementation showed a slightly more
   robust behavior with PQ, but had problems with synchronized TCP
   flows.  WRED behavior is highly dependent of the actual traffic
   characteristics and packet loss rates are often higher compared to
   other locations, while the fairness between TCP connections is
   better.  The combined solution of WFQ with RED showed the overall
   best behavior, when an operator's intent is to keep a small but
   noticeable throughput in the LE PDB.



















Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PDB               November 2002


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  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.



















Bless, et al.             Expires Mai 20, 2003                 [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/