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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Internet Engineering Task Force                                    Baker
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                                     Finzi
Expires: December 1, 2018                                        Frances
                                                                  Lochin
                                                                Mifdaoui
                                                            ISAE-SUPAERO
                                                            May 30, 2018


                      Priority Switching Scheduler
              draft-finzi-priority-switching-scheduler-02

Abstract

   We detail the implementation of a network scheduler that aims at
   isolating time constrained and elastic traffic flows from best-effort
   traffic.  This scheduler inherits from the priority scheduler (PS)
   but dynamically changes the priority of one or several queues.  Usual
   implementations of rate scheduler schemes (such as WRR, DRR, ...) do
   not allow to efficiently guarantee the capacity dedicated to both AF
   and BE classes as they mostly provide soft bounds.  This means
   excessive margin is used to ensure the capacity requested and this
   impacts the number of additional users that could be accepted in the
   network.  To cope with this issue, this memo presents a credit based
   scheduler mechanism called Priority Switching Scheduler (PSS) that
   allows a more predictable output rate per traffic class.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 1, 2018.







Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Context and Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Priority Switching Scheduler in a nutshell  . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Priority Switching Scheduler  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Usecase: benefit of using PSS in a Diffserv core network  . .   9
     3.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  New service offered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Context and Motivation

   To share the capacity offered by a link, many fair schedulers have
   been developed, such as Weighted Fair Queuing, Weighted Round Robin
   or Deficit Round Robin.  However, with these well-known solutions,
   the output rate of a given queue depends on the amount of traffic
   crossing other queues.  Our proposal aims at reducing the uncertainty
   of the output rate of selected queues, we call them in the following
   controlled queues.  Additionally, compared to previous cited schemes,
   this solution is simpler to implement mainly because it does not
   require a virtual clock, and more flexible thanks to the wide
   possibilities offered by the setting of different priorities.



Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


1.2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.3.  Priority Switching Scheduler in a nutshell

                                             _____________________
                                            | p_low[i]  p_high[i] |
                                      ------|_____________________|
                            sets()    |               ^
                             _________|__             |
   PSS controlled           |         |  |            | selects()
       queue i ------------>|  p[i]=  v  |            |
                            |            |        credit[i]
                     .      |      .     |            ^
                     .      |      .     |            | updates()
                     .      |      .     |            |
   non-active               |            |------------------> output
   PSS queue j ------------>|    p[j]    |                    traffic
                            |            | for any queue q:
                     .      |      .     |  p[q]: priority
                     .      |      .     |  p_low[q]: low priority
                     .      |      .     |  p_high[q]: high priority
                            |____________|
                          Priority Scheduler

                        Figure 1: PSS in a nutshell

   As illustrated in Figure 1, the principle of PSS is based on the use
   of credit counters (detailed in the following) to change the priority
   of one or several queues.  The idea follows a proposal made by the
   TSN Task group named Burst Limiting Shaper [BLS].  For each
   controlled queue i, each priority denoted p[i], changes between two
   values denoted p_low[i] and p_high[i], depending on the associated
   credit counter, i.e., credit[i].  Then a Priority Scheduler is used
   for the dequeuing process, e.g., among the queues with available
   traffic, the first packet of the queue with the highest priority is
   dequeued.

   The main idea is that changing the priorities adds fairness to the
   Priority Scheduler.  Depending on the credit counter parameters, the
   amount of capacity available to a controlled queue is bounded between
   a minimum and a maximum value.  Consequently, good parameterization
   is very important to prevent starvation of lower priority queues.





Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


   The service obtained for the controlled queue with the switching
   priority is more predictable and corresponds to the minimum between a
   desired capacity and the residual capacity left by higher priorities.
   The impact of the input traffic sporadicity from higher classes is
   thus transfered to non-active PSS queues with a lower priority.

   Finally, PSS offers much flexibility as both i) controlled queues
   with a guaranteed capacity (when two priorities are set), ii) and
   queues scheduled with a simple Priority Scheduler (when only one
   priority is set) can conjointly be enabled.

2.  Priority Switching Scheduler

2.1.  Specification

   The PSS algorithm defines for each queue q a low priority, p_low[q],
   and a high priority, p_high[q].  Each PSS controlled queue q with
   p_high[q] < p_low[q] is associated to a credit counter credit[q]
   which manages the priority switching.  Each credit counter is defined
   by:

   o  a minimum level: 0;

   o  a maximum level: LMs[q];

   o  a resume level: LRs[q]

   o  a reserved capacity: BWs[q]

   o  an idle slope: Iidle[q] = C * BWs[q];

   o  a sending slope: Isend[q] = C - Iidle[q];

   The available capacity is mostly impacted by the guaranteed capacity
   BWs[q].  Hence BWs[q] should be set to the desired capacity plus a
   margin taking into account the additional packet due to non-premption
   as explained below:

   the value of LMs[q] can negatively impact on the guaranteed available
   capacity.  The maximum level determines the size of the maximum
   sending windows, i.e, the maximum uninterrupted transmission time of
   the controlled queue packets before a priority switching.  The impact
   of the non-premption is as a function of the value of LMs[q].  The
   smaller the LMs[q], the larger the impact of the non-premption is.
   For example, if the number of packets varies between 4 and 5, the
   variation of the output traffic is around 25% (i.e. going from 4 to 5
   corresponds to a 25% increase).  If the number of packets sent varies
   between 50 and 51, the variation of the output traffic is around 2%.



Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


   The credit allows to keep track of the packet transmissions.
   However, there are two cases keeping track of the transmission raises
   an issue: when the credit is saturated at LMs[q] or at 0.  In both
   cases, packets are transmitted without gained or consumed credit.
   Nevertheless, the resume level can be used to decrease the times when
   the credit is saturated at 0.  If the resume level is 0, then as soon
   as the credit reaches 0, the priority is switched and the credit
   saturates at 0 due to the non-preemption of the current packet.  On
   the contrary, if LRs[q]>0, then during the transmission of the non-
   preempted packet, the credit keeps on decreasing before reaching 0 as
   illustrated in Figure 2.

   Hence, the proposed value for LRs[q] is LRs[q]= Lmax(MC(q))*BWs[q],
   with MC(q) the queues such as k in MC(q) -> p_low[q] > (p_low[k] or
   p_high[k])> p_high[q], and Lmax(qs) the maximum size of the queues
   qs.  With this value, there is no credit saturation at 0 due to non-
   preemption.

   Finally, we propose to use the following parameters of a controlled
   queue q:

   o  BWs[q]= desired_BWs[q] + 1/(N-1)

   o  LMs[q]= (N-1) * Lmax(q) * (1 - BWs[q])

   o  LRs[q]= Lmax(MC(q)) * BWs[q]

   with N the maximum number of packet of queue q set uninterrupted
   (taking into account the non-preemption) and desired_BWs[q] the
   percentage of desired available capacity.

   A similar parameter setting is described in [Globecom17], to
   transform WRR parameter into PSS parameters, in the specific case of
   3-classes DiffServ architecture.

   The priority change depends on the credit counter as follows:

   o  initially, the credit counter starts at 0;

   o  the change of priority p[q] of queue q occurs in two cases:

      *  if p[q] = p_high[q] and the credit reaches LMs[q];

      *  if p[q] = p_low[q] and credit reaches LRs[q];

   o  when a packet of queue q is transmitted, the credit increases with
      a rate Isend[q], else the credit decreases with a rate Iidle[q];




Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


   o  when the credit reaches LMs[q], it remains at this level until the
      end of the transmission of the current packet;

   o  when the credit reaches 0, it remains at this level until the
      start of the transmission of a queue q packet.

   Figure 2 and Figure 3 show two examples of credit and priority
   changes of a given queue q.  First, in Figure 2, we show an example
   when the controlled queue q sends its traffic continuously until the
   priority change.  Then other traffic is also sent uninterruptedly
   until the priority changes back.  In Figure 3, we propose a more
   complex behaviour.  First, this figure shows when a packet with a
   priority higher than p_high[q] is available, this packet is sent
   before the traffic of class q.  Secondly, when no traffic with a
   priority lower than p_low[q] is available, then traffic of queue q
   can be sent.  This highlight the non-blocking nature of PSS and that
   p[q] = p_high[q] (resp. p[q] = p_low[q]) does not necessarily mean
   that traffic of queue q is being sent (resp. not being sent).

         ^ credit[q]
         |         |                   |
         |p_high[q]|       p_low[q]    | p_high[q]
   LMs[q]|- - - - -++++++- - - - - - - |- - - -+++
         |        +|    |+             |      +
         | Isend + |    |  +  Iidle    |     +
         |  [q] +  |    |    +  [q]    |    +
         |     +   |    |      +       |   +
         |    +    |    |        +     |  +
         |   +     |    |          +   | +
   LRs[q]|  +      |    |            + |+
     0   |-+- - - -|- - |- - - - - - - +- - - - - >
                        |              |          time
         @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@oooooooooooooo@@@@@@@@@@

               @ queue q traffic  o other traffic

     Figure 2: First example of queue q credit and priority behaviors














Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


         ^ credit[q]
         |                        |
         |         p_high[q]      |     p_low[q]
   LMs[q]+ - - - - - - - - - - - -++++ - - - - - - -+
         |                       +|  |+           +
         |               ++     + |  |  +       +
         |              + | +  +  |  |    +   +
         |     ++      +  |   +   |  |      +
         |    +|  +   +   |   |   |  |      |
         |   + |     +    |   |   |  |      |
   LRs[q]+--+--|-----|----|---|---|--|------|-------
    0    +-+- -| - - |- - |- -|- -|- |- - - |- - - - >
               |     |    |   |      |      |        time
         @@@@@@oooooo@@@@@oooo@@@@@@@@oooooo@@@@@@@

               @ queue q traffic  o other traffic

     Figure 3: Second example of queue q credit and priority behaviors

   Finally, for the dequeuing process, a Priority Scheduler selects the
   appropriate packet using the current p[q] values, e.g., among the
   queues with available traffic, the first packet of the queue with the
   highest priority is dequeued.

2.2.  Implementation

   The new dequeuing algorithm is presented in the PSS Algorithm.  The
   credit of each queue q, denoted credit[q], and the dequeuing timer
   denoted timerDQ[q] are initialized to zero.  The initial priority is
   set to the high value p_high[q].  First, for each queue with
   p_high[q] > p_low[q], the difference between the current time and the
   time stored in timerDQ[q], is computed (lines 2 and 3).  The duration
   dtime[q] represents the time elapsed since the last credit update,
   during which no packet of the controlled queue q was sent, we call
   this the idle time.  Then, if dtime[q]>0, the credit is updated by
   removing the credit gained during the idle time that just occurred
   (lines 4 and 5).  Next, timerDQ[q] is set to the current time to keep
   track of the time the credit is last updated (line 6).  If the credit
   reaches LRs[q], the priority changes to its high value (lines 7 and
   8).  Then, with the updated priorities, the priority scheduler
   performs as usual: each queue is checked for dequeuing, highest
   priority first (lines 12 and 13).  When a queue q is selected with
   p_high[q] < p_low[q], the credit expected to be consumed is added to
   credit[q] variable (line 16).  The time taken for the packet to be
   dequeued is added to the variable timerDQ[q] (lines 13 and 14) so the
   transmission time of the packet will not be taken into account in the
   idle time dtime[q] (line 2).  If the credit reaches LMs[q], the




Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


   priority changes to its low value (lines 18 and 19).  Finally, the
   packet is dequeued (line 22).

   Inputs: credits, timerDQs, C, LMs,LRs,BWs,p_highs, p_lows
    1   currentTime = getCurrentTime()
    2   for each queue q with p_high[q] < p_low[q] do:
    3      dtime[q] = currentTime-timerDQ[q]
    4      if dtime[q]>0 then:
    5         credit[q] = max(credit[q]-dtime[q].C.BWs[q],0)
    6         dtime[q] = currentTime
    7         if credit[q]<LRs[q] and p[q] = p_low[q] then:
    8            p[q] = p_high[q]
    9         end if
   10      end if
   11   end for
   12   for each priority level pl, highest first do:
   13      if length(queue(pl))>0 then:
   14         q=queue(pl)
   15         if p_high[q] < p_low[q] then:
   16            credit[q] = min(LMs[q],
                                 credit[q]+size(head(q)).(1-BWs[q]))
   17            timerDQ[q] = currentTime+size(head(q))/C
   18            if credit >= LMs[q] and p[q] = p_high[q] then:
   19               p[q] = p_low[q]
   20            end if
   21         end if
   22         dequeue(head(q))
   23         break
   24      end if
   25   end for

                          Figure 4: PSS algorithm

   PSS algorithm also implements the following functions:

   o  getCurrentTime() uses a timer to return the current time;

   o  queue(pl) returns the queue associated to priority pl;

   o  head(q) returns the first packet of queue q;

   o  size(f) returns the size of packet f;

   o  dequeue(f) activates the dequeing event of packet f.







Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


3.  Usecase: benefit of using PSS in a Diffserv core network

3.1.  Motivation

   The DiffServ architecture defined in [RFC4594] and [RFC2475] proposes
   a scalable mean to deliver IP quality of service (QoS) based on
   handling traffic aggregates.  This architecture follows the
   philosophy that complexity should be delegated to the network edges
   while simple functionalities should be located in the core network.
   Thus, core devices only perform differentiated aggregate treatments
   based on the marking set by edge devices.

   Keeping aside policing mechanisms that might enable edge devices in
   this architecture, a DiffServ stateless core network is often used to
   differentiate time-constrained UDP traffic (e.g.  VoIP or VoD) and
   TCP bulk data transfer from all the remaining best-effort (BE)
   traffic called default traffic (DF).  The Expedited Forwarding (EF)
   class is used to carry UDP traffic coming from time-constrained
   applications (VoIP, Command/Control, ...); the Assured Forwarding
   (AF) class deals with elastic traffic as defined in [RFC4594] (data
   transfer, updating process, ...) while all other remaining traffic is
   classified inside the default (DF) best-effort class.

   The first and best service is provided to EF as the priority
   scheduler attributes the highest priority to this class.  The second
   service is called assured service and is built on top of the AF class
   where elastic traffic such as TCP traffic, is intended to achieve a
   minimum level of throughput.  Usually, the minimum assured throughput
   is given according to a negotiated profile with the client.  The
   throughput increases as long as there are available resources and
   decreases when congestion occurs.  As a matter of fact, a simple
   priority scheduler is insufficient to implement the AF service.  TCP
   traffic increases until reaching the capacity of the bottleneck due
   to its opportunistic nature of fetching the full remaining capacity.
   In particular, this behaviour could lead to starve the DF class.

   To prevent a starvation and ensure to both DF and AF a minimum
   service rate, the router architecture proposed in [RFC5865] uses a
   rate scheduler between AF and DF classes to share the residual
   capacity left by the EF class.  Nevertheless, one drawback of using a
   rate scheduler is the high impact of EF traffic on AF and DF.
   Indeed, the residual capacity shared by AF and DF classes is directly
   impacted by the EF traffic variation.  As a consequence, the AF and
   DF class services are difficult to predict in terms of available
   capacity and latency.

   To overcome these limitations and make AF service more predictable,
   we propose here to use the newly defined Priority Switching Scheduler



Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


   (PSS).  Figure 5 shows an example of the Data Plane Priority core
   network router presented in [RFC5865] modified with a PSS.  The EF
   queues have the highest priorities to offer the best service to real-
   time traffic.  The priority changes set the AF priorities either
   higher (3,4) or lower (6,7) than CS0 (5), leading to capacity
   sharing.  Another example with only 3 queues is described in
   [Globecom17].  Thank to the increase predictability, for the same
   minimum guaranteed rate, the PSS reserves a lower percentage of the
   capacity than a rate scheduler.  This leaves more remaining capacity
   that can be guaranteed to other users.

                             priorities
                            ________________________________
                    queues |                                |\
     Admitted EF--->||-----+ p[AEF]= 1                      | \
                           |                                |  \
   Unadmitted EF--->||-----+ p[UEF]= 2                      |   \
                           |                                |    \
             AF1--->||-----+ p_high[AF1]=3 and p_low[AF1]= 6| PSS ---
                           |                                |    /
             AF2--->||-----+ p_high[AF2]=4 and p_low[AF2]= 7|   /
                           |                                |  /
             CS0--->||-----+ p[CS0]= 5                      | /
                           |________________________________|/

    Figure 5: PSS applied to Data Plane Priority (we borrow the syntax
                               from RCF5865)

3.2.  New service offered

   The new service we seek to obtain is:

   o  for EF, the full capacity of the output link;

   o  for AF the minimum between a desired capacity and the residual
      capacity left by EF;

   o  for DF (CS0), the residual capacity left by EF and AF.

   As a result, the AF class has a more predictable available capacity,
   while the unpredictability is reported on the DF class.  With good
   parametrization, both classes also have a minimum rate ensured.
   Parameterization and simulations results concerning the use of a
   similar scheme for core network scheduling are available in
   [Globecom17]






Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


4.  Security Considerations

   There are no specific security exposure with PSS that would extend
   those inherent in default FIFO queuing or in static priority
   scheduling systems.  However, following the DiffServ usecase proposed
   in this memo and in particular the illustration of the integration of
   PSS as a possible implementation of the architecture proposed in
   [RFC5865], most of the security considerations from [RFC5865] and
   more generally from the differentiated services architecture
   described in [RFC2475] still hold.

5.  Acknowledgements

   This document was the result of collaboration and discussion among a
   large number of people.  In particular the authors wish to thank
   Nicolas Kuhn and David Black for reviewing this draft.  At last but
   not least, a very special thanks to Fred Baker for his help.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [BLS]      Gotz, F-J., "Traffic Shaper for Control Data Traffic
              (CDT)", IEEE 802 AVB Meeting , 2012.

   [Globecom17]
              Finzi, A., Lochin, E., Mifdaoui, A., and F. Frances,
              "Improving RFC5865 Core Network Scheduling with a Burst
              Limiting Shaper", Globecom , 2017, <acceptedPaper>.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.

   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc4594>.





Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


   [RFC5865]  Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "A Differentiated
              Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic",
              RFC 5865, DOI 10.17487/RFC5865, May 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5865>.

Authors' Addresses

   Fred Baker
   Santa Barbara, California  93117
   USA

   Email: FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com


   Anais Finzi
   ISAE-SUPAERO
   10 Avenue Edouard Belin
   Toulouse  31400
   France

   Phone: 0033561338735
   Email: anais.finzi@isae-supaero.fr


   Fabrice Frances
   ISAE-SUPAERO
   10 Avenue Edouard Belin
   Toulouse  31400
   France

   Email: fabrice.frances@isae-supaero.fr


   Emmanuel Lochin
   ISAE-SUPAERO
   10 Avenue Edouard Belin
   Toulouse  31400
   France

   Email: emmanuel.lochin@isae-supaero.fr











Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Priority Switching Scheduler              May 2018


   Ahlem Mifdaoui
   ISAE-SUPAERO
   10 Avenue Edouard Belin
   Toulouse  31400
   France

   Email: ahlem.mifdaoui@isae-supaero.fr












































Baker, et al.           Expires December 1, 2018               [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/