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

Versions: 00 01 03 04 05 RFC 2676

Internet Engineering Task Force      G.Apostolopoulos/R. Guerin/S. Kamat
INTERNET DRAFT                                             IBM/UPenn/IBM
                                       A. Orda/T. Przygienda/D. Williams
                                                     Technion/Lucent/IBM
                                                           14 April 1998


               QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions
                  draft-guerin-qos-routing-ospf-05.txt


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.


Abstract

   This memo describes extensions to the OSPF [Moy98] protocol to
   support QoS routes.  The focus of this document is on the algorithms
   used to compute QoS routes and on the necessary modifications to OSPF
   to support this function, e.g., the information needed, its format,
   how it is distributed, and how it is used by the QoS path selection
   process.  Aspects related to how QoS routes are established and
   managed are also briefly discussed.  The goal of this document is
   to identify a framework and possible approaches to allow deployment
   of QoS routing capabilities with the minimum possible impact to the
   existing routing infrastructure.







Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999              [Page i]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   In addition, experience from an implementation of the proposed
   extensions in the GateD environment [Con], along with performance
   measurements is presented.
















































Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page ii]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998




                                Contents



Status of This Memo                                                    i

Abstract                                                               i

 1. Introduction                                                       1
     1.1. Overall Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    1
     1.2. Simplifying Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    3

 2. Path Selection Information and Algorithms                          5
     2.1. Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5
     2.2. Advertisement of Link State Information . . . . . . . . .    6
     2.3. Path Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    8
           2.3.1. Path Computation Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . .   10

 3. OSPF Protocol Extensions                                          15
     3.1. QoS -- Optional Capabilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   16
     3.2. Encoding Resources as Extended TOS  . . . . . . . . . . .   17
           3.2.1. Encoding bandwidth resource . . . . . . . . . . .   18
           3.2.2. Encoding Delay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   20
     3.3. Packet Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   20
     3.4. Calculating the Inter-area Routes . . . . . . . . . . . .   21
     3.5. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   21

 4. A Reference Implementation based on GateD                         21
     4.1. The Gate Daemon (GateD) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . .   22
     4.2. Implementing the QoS Extensions of OSPF . . . . . . . . .   22
           4.2.1. Design Objectives and Scope . . . . . . . . . . .   22
           4.2.2. Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   24
     4.3. Major Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   24
     4.4. Bandwidth and Processing Overhead of QoS Routing  . . . .   28

 5. Security Considerations                                           31

 A. Pseudocode for the BF Based Pre-Computation Algorithm             32

 B. On-Demand Dijkstra Algorithm for QoS Path Computation             34

 C. Precomputation Using Dijkstra Algorithm                           37

 D. Explicit Routing Support                                          41





Guerin, et al.            Expires 19 October 1999             [Page iii]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


1. Introduction

   In this document, we describe a set of proposed additions to the
   OSPF routing protocol (these additions have been implemented on top
   of the GateD [Con] implementation of OSPF V2 [Moy98]) to support
   Quality-of-Service (QoS) routing in IP networks.  Support for QoS
   routing can be viewed as consisting of three major components:

    1. Obtain the information needed to compute QoS paths and select a
       path capable of meeting the QoS requirements of a given request,

    2. Establish the path selected to accommodate a new request,

    3. Maintain the path assigned for use by a given request.

   Although we touch upon aspects related to the last two components,
   the focus of this document is on the first one.  In particular, we
   discuss the metrics required to support QoS, the extension to the
   OSPF link state advertisement mechanism to propagate updates of QoS
   metrics, and the modifications to the path selection to accommodate
   QoS requests.  The goal of the extensions described in this document
   is to improve performance for QoS flows (likelihood to be routed on
   a path capable of providing the requested QoS), with minimal impact
   on the existing OSPF protocol and its current implementation.  Given
   the inherent complexity of QoS routing, achieving this goal obviously
   implies trading-off ``optimality'' for ``simplicity'', but we believe
   this to be required in order to facilitate deployment of QoS routing
   capabilities.

   In addition to describing the proposed extensions to the OSPF
   protocol, this document also reports experimental data based on
   performance measurements of an implementation done on the GateD
   platform (see Section 4).


1.1. Overall Framework

   We consider a network (1) that supports both best-effort packets and
   packets with QoS guarantees.  The way in which the network resources
   are split between the two classes is irrelevant, except for the
   assumption that each QoS capable router in the network is able to
   dedicate some of its resources to satisfy the requirements of QoS

----------------------------
1. In this document we commit the abuse of notation of calling a
   ``network'' the interconnection of routers and networks through which
   we attempt to compute a QoS path.




Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999              [Page 1]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   packets.  QoS capable routers are also assumed capable of identifying
   and advertising resources that remain available to new QoS flows.
   In addition, we limit ourselves to the case where all the routers
   involved support the QoS extensions described in this document,
   i.e., we do not consider the problem of establishing a route in a
   heterogeneous environment where some routers are QoS-capable and
   others are not.  Furthermore, in this document, we focus on the
   case of unicast flows, although many of the additions we define are
   applicable to multicast flows as well.

   We assume that a flow with QoS requirements specifies them in
   some fashion that is accessible to the routing protocol.  For
   example, this could correspond to the arrival of an RSVP [RZB+97]
   PATH message, whose TSpec is passed to routing together with the
   destination address.  After processing such a request, the routing
   protocol returns the path that it deems the most suitable given the
   flow's requirements.  Depending on the scope of the path selection
   process, this returned path could range from simply identifying the
   best next hop, i.e., a hop-by-hop path selection model, to specifying
   all intermediate nodes to the destination, i.e., an explicit route
   model.  The nature of the path being returned impacts the operation
   of the path selection algorithm as it translates into different
   requirements for constructing and returning the appropriate path
   information.  However, it does not affect the basic operation of the
   path selection algorithm (2).

   For simplicity and also because it is the model currently supported
   in the implementation (see Section 4 for details), in the rest of
   this document we focus on the hop-by-hop path selection model.  The
   additional modifications required to support an explicit routing
   model are discussed in appendix D, but are peripheral to the main
   focus of this document which concentrates on the specific extensions
   to the OPSF protocol to support computation of QoS routes.

   In addition to the problem of selecting a QoS path and possibly
   reserving the corresponding resources, one should note that the
   successful delivery of QoS guarantees requires that the packets of
   the associated ``QoS flow'' be forwarded on the selected path.  This
   typically requires the installation of corresponding forwarding state
   in the router.  For example, with RSVP [RZB+97] flows a classifier
   entry is created based on the filter specs contained in the RESV
   message.  In the case of a Differentiated Service [KNB98] setting,

----------------------------
2. This is true for uni-cast flows, but in the case of multi-cast flows,
   hop-by-hop and an explicit routing clearly have different
   implications.




Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999              [Page 2]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   the classifier entry may be based on the destination address (or
   prefix) and the corresponding value of the DS byte.  The mechanisms
   described in this document are at the control path level and are,
   therefore, independent of data path mechanisms such as the packet
   classification method used.  Nevertheless, it is important to notice
   that consistent delivery of QoS guarantees implies stability of
   the data path.  In particular, while it is possible that after a
   path is first selected, network conditions change and result in the
   appearance of ``better'' paths, such changes should be prevented
   from unnecessarily affecting existing paths.  In particular,
   switching over to a new (and better) path should be limited to
   specific conditions, e.g., when the initial selection turns out to
   be inadequate or extremely ``expensive''.  This aspect is beyond the
   scope of QoS routing and belongs to the realm of path management,
   which is outside the main focus of this document.  However, because
   of its potentially significant impact on the usefulness of QoS
   routing, we briefly outline a possible approach to path management.

   Avoiding unnecessary changes to QoS paths requires that state
   information be maintained for each QoS path after it has been
   selected.  This state information is used to track the validity of
   the path, i.e., is the current path adequate or should QoS routing
   be queried again to generate a new and potentially better path.
   We say that a path is ``pinned'' when its state specifies that
   QoS routing need not be queried anew, while a path is considered
   ``un-pinned'' otherwise.  The main issue is then to define how, when,
   and where path pinning and un-pinning is to take place, and this
   will typically depend on the mechanism used to request QoS routes.
   For example, when the RSVP protocol is the mechanism being used, it
   is desirable that path management be kept as synergetic as possible
   with the existing RSVP state management.  In other words, pinning
   and un-pinning of paths should be coordinated with RSVP soft states,
   and structured so as to require minimal changes to RSVP processing
   rules.  A broad RSVP-routing interface that enables this is described
   in [GKR97].  Use of such an interface in the context of reserving
   resources along an explicit path with RSVP is discussed in [GLG+97].
   Details of path management and a means for avoiding loops in case of
   hop-by-hop path setup can be found in [GKH97], and are not addressed
   further in this document.


1.2. Simplifying Assumptions

   In order to achieve our goal of minimizing impact to the existing
   protocol and implementation, we impose certain restrictions on
   the range of extensions we initially consider to support QoS. The
   first restriction is on the type of additional (QoS) metrics that
   will be added to Link State Advertisements (LSAs) for the purpose



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999              [Page 3]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   of distributing metrics updates.  Specifically, the extensions to
   LSAs that we initially consider, include only available bandwidth
   and delay.  In addition, path selection is itself limited to
   considering only bandwidth requirements.  In particular, the path
   selection algorithm selects paths capable of satisfying the bandwidth
   requirement of flows, while at the same time trying to minimize the
   amount of network resources that need to be allocated, i.e., minimize
   the number of hops used.

   This focus on bandwidth is adequate in most instances, and meant to
   keep initial complexity at an acceptable level.  However, it does
   not fully capture the complete range of potential QoS requirements.
   For example, a delay-sensitive flow of an interactive application
   could be put on a path using a satellite link, if that link provided
   a direct path and had plenty of unused bandwidth.  This would clearly
   be an undesirable choice.  Our approach to preventing such poor
   choices, is to assign delay-sensitive flows to a ``policy'' that
   would eliminate from the network all links with high propagation
   delay, e.g., satellite links, before invoking the path selection
   algorithm.  In general, multiple policies could be used to capture
   different requirements, each presenting to the path selection
   algorithm a correspondingly pruned network topology, on which
   the same algorithm would be used to generate an appropriate path.
   Alternatively, different algorithms could be used depending on the
   QoS requirements expressed by an incoming request.  Such extensions
   are beyond the scope of this document, which limits itself to
   describing the case of a single metric, bandwidth.  However, it is
   worth pointing out that a simple extension to the path selection
   algorithm proposed in this document allows us to directly account
   for delay, under certain conditions, when rate-based schedulers are
   employed, as in the Guaranteed Service proposal [SPG97]; details can
   be found in [GOW97].

   Another important aspect to ensure that introducing support for QoS
   routing has the minimal possible impact, is to develop a solution
   that has the smallest possible computing overhead.  Additional
   computations are unavoidable, but it is desirable to keep the
   computational cost of QoS routing at a level comparable to that of
   traditional routing algorithms.  One possible approach to achieve
   this goal, is to allow pre-computation of QoS routes.  This is the
   method that was chosen for the implementation of the QoS extensions
   to OSPF and is, therefore, the one described in detail in this
   document.  Alternative approaches are briefly reviewed in appendices.
   However, it should be noted that although several alternative path
   selection algorithms are possible, the same algorithm should be used
   consistently within a given routing domain.  This requirement may
   be relaxed when explicit routing is used, as the responsibility for
   selecting a QoS path lies with a single entity, the origin of the



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999              [Page 4]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   request, which then ensures consistency even if each router uses
   a different path selection algorithm.  Nevertheless, the use of a
   common path selection algorithm within an AS is recommended, if not
   necessary, for proper operation.

   A last aspect of concern regarding the introduction of QoS routing,
   is to control the overhead associated with the additional link
   state updates caused by more frequent changes to link metrics.
   The goal is to minimize the amount of additional update traffic
   without adversely affecting the performance of path selection.  In
   Section 2.2, we present a brief discussion of various alternatives
   that trade accuracy of link state information for protocol overhead.
   Potential enhancements to the path selection algorithm, which seek
   to (directly) account for the inaccuracies in link metrics, are
   described in [GOW97], while a comprehensive treatment of the subject
   can be found in [GO97, LO98].  In Section 4, we also describe the
   design choices made in a reference implementation, to allow future
   extensions and experimentation with different link state update
   mechanisms.

   The rest of this document is structured as follows.  In Section 2,
   we describe the general design choices and mechanisms we rely
   on to support QoS request.  This includes details on the path
   selection metrics, link state update extensions, and the path
   selection algorithm itself.  Section 3 focuses on the specific
   extensions that the OSPF protocol requires, while Section 4 describes
   their implementation in the GateD platform and also presents some
   experimental results.  Section 5 briefly addresses security issues
   that the proposed schemes may raise.  Finally, several appendices
   provide additional material of interest, e.g., alternative path
   selection algorithms and support for explicit routes, but somewhat
   outside the main focus of this document.


2. Path Selection Information and Algorithms

   This section reviews the basic building blocks of QoS path selection,
   namely the metrics on the which the routing algorithm operates, the
   mechanisms used to propagate updates for these metrics, and finally
   the path selection algorithm itself.


2.1. Metrics

   The process of selecting a path that can satisfy the QoS requirements
   of a new flow relies on both the knowledge of the flow's requirements
   and characteristics, and information about the availability of
   resources in the network.  In addition, for purposes of efficiency,



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999              [Page 5]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   it is also important for the algorithm to account for the amount of
   resources the network has to allocate to support a new flow.  In
   general, the network prefers to select the ``cheapest'' path among
   all paths suitable for a new flow, and it may even decide not to
   accept a new flow for which a feasible path exists, if the cost of
   the path is deemed too high.  Accounting for these aspects involves
   several metrics on which the path selection process is based.  They
   include:

    -  Link available bandwidth:  As mentioned earlier, we currently
       assume that most QoS requirements are derivable from a
       rate-related quantity, termed ``bandwidth.''  We further assume
       that associated with each link is a maximal bandwidth value,
       e.g., the link physical bandwidth or some fraction thereof that
       has been set aside for QoS flows.  Since for a link to be capable
       of accepting a new flow with given bandwidth requirements, at
       least that much bandwidth must be still available on the link,
       the relevant link metric is, therefore, the (current) amount of
       available (i.e., unallocated) bandwidth.  Changes in this metric
       need to be advertised as part of extended LSAs, so that accurate
       information is available to the path selection algorithm.

    -  Link propagation delay:  This quantity is meant to identify high
       latency links, e.g., satellite links, which may be unsuitable for
       real-time requests.  This quantity also needs to be advertised
       as part of extended LSAs, although timely dissemination of
       this information is not critical as this parameter is unlikely
       to change (significantly) over time.  As mentioned earlier,
       link propagation delay can be used to decide on the pruning of
       specific links, when selecting a path for a delay sensitive
       request; also, it can be used to support a related extension, as
       described in [GOW97].

    -  Hop-count:  This quantity is used as a measure of the path cost
       to the network.  A path with a smaller number of hops (that can
       support a requested connection) is typically preferable, since
       it consumes fewer network resources.  As a result, the path
       selection algorithm will attempt to find the minimum hop path
       capable of satisfying the requirements of a given request.  Note
       that contrary to bandwidth and propagation delay, hop count is a
       metric that does not affect LSAs, and it is only used implicitly
       as part of the path selection algorithm.


2.2. Advertisement of Link State Information

   The new link metrics identified in the previous section need to
   be advertised across the network, so that each router can compute



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999              [Page 6]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   accurate and consistent QoS routes.  It is assumed that each router
   maintains an updated database of the network topology, including the
   current state (available bandwidth and propagation delay) of each
   link.  As mentioned before, the distribution of link state (metrics)
   information is based on extending OSPF mechanisms.  The detailed
   format of those extensions is described in Section 3, but in addition
   to how link state information is distributed, another important
   aspect is when such distribution is to take place.

   One option is to mandate periodic updates, where the period of
   updates is determined based on a tolerable corresponding load on
   the network and the routers.  The main disadvantage of such an
   approach is that major changes in the bandwidth available on a link
   could remain unknown for a full period and, therefore, result in
   many incorrect routing decisions.  Ideally, routers should have the
   most current view of the bandwidth available on all links in the
   network, so that they can make the most accurate decision of which
   path to select.  Unfortunately, this then calls for very frequent
   updates, e.g., each time the available bandwidth of a link changes,
   which is neither scalable nor practical.  In general, there is a
   trade-off between the protocol overhead of frequent updates and the
   accuracy of the network state information that the path selection
   algorithm depends on.  We outline next a few possible link state
   update policies, which strike a practical compromise.

   The basic idea is to trigger link state advertisements only when
   there is a significant change in the value of metrics since the last
   advertisement.  The notion of significance of a change can be based
   on an ``absolute'' scale or a ``relative'' one.  An absolute scale
   means partitioning the range of values that a metric can take into
   equivalence classes and triggering an update whenever the metric
   changes sufficiently to cross a class boundary (3).  A relative
   scale, on the other hand, triggers updates when the percentage change
   in the metric value exceeds a predefined threshold.  Independent of
   whether a relative or an absolute change trigger mechanism is used, a
   periodic trigger constraint can also be added.  This constraint can
   be in the form of a hold-down timer, which is used to force a minimum
   spacing between consecutive updates.  Alternatively, a transmit
   timer can also be used to ensure the transmission of an update after
   a certain time has expired.  Such a feature can be useful if link
   state updates advertising bandwidth changes are sent unreliably.  The
   current protocol extensions described in Section 3 as well as the
   implementation of Section 4 do not consider such an option as metric

----------------------------
3. Some hysteresis mechanism should be added to suppress updates when
   the metric value oscillates around a class boundary.




Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999              [Page 7]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   updates are sent using the standard, and reliable, OSPF flooding
   mechanism.  However, this is clearly an extension worth considering
   as it can help lower substantially the protocol overhead associated
   with metrics updates.

   In both the relative and absolute change approaches, the metric value
   advertised in an LSA can be either the actual or a quantized value.
   Advertising the actual metric value is more accurate and, therefore,
   preferable when metrics are frequently updated.  On the other hand,
   when updates are less frequent, e.g., because of a low sensitivity
   trigger or the use of hold-down timers, advertising quantized
   values can be of benefit.  This is because it can help increase
   the number of equal cost paths and, therefore, improve robustness
   to metrics inaccuracies.  In general, there is a broad space of
   possible trade-offs between accuracy and overhead and selecting an
   appropriate design point is difficult and depends on many parameters
   (see [AGKT98] for a more detailed discussion of these issues).  As
   a result, in order to help acquire a better understanding of these
   issues, the implementation described in Section 4 supports a range
   of options that allow exploration of the available design space.  In
   addition, Section 4 also reports experimental data on the traffic
   load and processing overhead generated by links state updates for
   different configurations.


2.3. Path Selection

   There are two major aspects to computing paths for QoS requests.  The
   first is the actual path selection algorithm itself, i.e., which
   metrics and criteria it relies on.  The second is when the algorithm
   is actually invoked.

   The topology on which the algorithm is run is, as with the standard
   OSPF path selection, a directed graph where vertices (4) consist of
   routers and networks (transit vertices) as well as stub networks
   (non-transit vertices).  When computing a path, stub networks are
   added as a post-processing step, which is essentially similar to what
   is done with the current OSPF routing protocol.  The optimization
   criteria used by the path selection are reflected in the costs
   associated with each interface in the topology and how those costs
   are accounted for in the algorithm itself.  As mentioned before,
   the cost of a path is a function of both its hop count and the
   amount of available bandwidth.  As a result, each interface has
   associated with it a metric, which corresponds to the amount of

----------------------------
4. In this document, we use the terms node and vertex interchangeably.




Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999              [Page 8]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   bandwidth that remains available on this interface.  This metric is
   combined with hop count information to provide a cost value, whose
   goal is to pick a path with the minimum possible number of hops
   among those that can support the requested bandwidth.  When several
   such paths are available, the preference is for the path whose
   available bandwidth (i.e., the smallest value on any of the links
   in the path) is maximal.  The rationale for the above rule is the
   following:  we focus on feasible paths (as accounted by the available
   bandwidth metric) that consume a minimal amount of network resources
   (as accounted by the hop-count metric); and the rule for selecting
   among these paths is meant to balance load as well as maximize the
   likelihood that the required bandwidth is indeed available.

   It should be noted that standard routing algorithms are typically
   single objective optimizations, i.e., they may minimize the
   hop-count, or maximize the path bandwidth, but not both.  Double
   objective path optimization is a more complex task, and, in general,
   it is an intractable problem [GJ79].  Nevertheless, because of the
   specific nature of the two objectives being optimized (bandwidth and
   hop count), the complexity of the above algorithm is competitive
   with even that of standard single-objective algorithms.  For readers
   interested in a thorough treatment of the topic, with insights into
   the connection between the different algorithms, linear algebra and
   modification of metrics, [Car79] is recommended.

   Before proceeding with a more detailed description of the path
   selection algorithm itself, we briefly review the available options
   when it comes to deciding when to invoke the algorithm.  The two
   main options are:  1) to perform on-demand computations, that is,
   trigger a computation for each new request, and 2) to use some form
   of pre-computation.  The on-demand case involves no additional issues
   in terms of when computations should be triggered, but running the
   path selection algorithm for each new request can be computationally
   expensive (see [AT98] for a discussion on this issue).  On the other
   hand, pre-computing paths amortizes the computational cost over
   multiple requests, but each computation instance is usually more
   expensive than in the on-demand case (paths are computed to all
   destinations and for all possible bandwidth requests rather than for
   a single destination and a given bandwidth request).  Furthermore,
   depending on how often paths are recomputed, the accuracy of the
   selected paths may be lower.  In this document, we primarily focus
   on the case of pre-computed paths, which is also the only method
   currently supported in the reference implementation described in
   Section 4.  In this case, clearly, an important issue is when such
   pre-computation should take place.  The two main options we consider
   are periodic pre-computations and pre-computations after a given (N)
   number of updates have been received.  The former has the benefit of
   ensuring a strict bound on the computational load associated with



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999              [Page 9]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   pre-computations, while the latter can provide for a more responsive
   solution (5).  Section 4 provides some experimental results comparing
   the performance and cost of periodic pre-computations for different
   period values.


2.3.1. Path Computation Algorithm

   This section describes a path selection algorithm, which for a given
   network topology and link metrics (available bandwidth), pre-computes
   all possible QoS paths, while maintaining a reasonably low
   computational complexity.  Specifically, the algorithm pre-computes
   for any destination a minimum hop count path with maximum bandwidth,
   and has a computational complexity comparable to that of a standard
   Bellman-Ford shortest path algorithm.  The Bellman-Ford (BF) shortest
   path algorithm is adapted to compute paths of maximum available
   bandwidth for all hop counts.  It is a property of the BF algorithm
   that, at its h-th iteration, it identifies the optimal (in our
   context:  maximal bandwidth) path between the source and each
   destination, among paths of at most h hops.  In other words, the
   cost of a path is a function of its available bandwidth, i.e., the
   smallest available bandwidth on all links of the path, and finding
   a minimum cost path amounts to finding a maximum bandwidth path.
   However, because the BF algorithm progresses by increasing hop count,
   it essentially provides for free the hop count of a path as a second
   optimization criteria.

   Specifically, at the kth (hop count) iteration of the algorithm, the
   maximum bandwidth available to all destinations on a path of no more
   than k hops is recorded (together with the corresponding routing
   information).  After the algorithm terminates, this information
   provides for all destinations and bandwidth requirements, the path
   with the smallest possible number of hops and sufficient bandwidth
   to accommodate the new request.  Furthermore, this path is also the
   one with the maximal available bandwidth among all the feasible paths
   with at most these many hops.  This is because for any hop count, the
   algorithm always selects the one with maximum available bandwidth.

----------------------------
5. Various hybrid methods can also be envisioned, e.g., periodic
   computations except if more than a given number of updates are
   received within a shorter interval, or periodic updates except if the
   change in metrics corresponding to a given update exceeds
   a certain threshold.  Such variations are, however, not considered in
   this document.






Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 10]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   We now proceed with a more detailed description of the algorithm
   and the data structure used to record routing information, i.e.,
   the QoS routing table that gets built as the algorithm progresses
   (the pseudo-code for the algorithm can be found in Appendix A).
   As mentioned before, the algorithm operates on a directed graph
   consisting only of transit vertices (routers and networks), with
   stub-networks subsequently added to the path(s) generated by the
   algorithm.  The metric associated with each edge in the graph is the
   bandwidth available on the corresponding interface.  Let us denote by
   b(n;m) the available bandwidth on the link from node n to m.  The
   vertex corresponding to the router where the algorithm is being run,
   i.e., the computing router, is denoted as the ``source node'' for the
   purpose of path selection.  The algorithm proceeds to pre-compute
   paths from this source node to all possible destination networks and
   for all possible bandwidth values.  At each (hop count) iteration,
   intermediate results are recorded in a QoS routing table, which has
   the following structure:

The QoS routing table:

    -  a KxH matrix, where K is the number of destinations (vertices
       in the graph) and H is the maximal allowed (or possible) number
       of hops for a path.

    -  The (n;h) entry is built during the hth iteration (hop count
       value) of the algorithm, and consists of two fields:

        *  bw:  the maximum available bandwidth, on a path of at most h
           hops between the source node (router) and destination node
           n;

        *  neighbor:  this is the routing information associated with
           the h (or less) hops path to destination node n, whose
           available bandwidth is bw.  In the context of hop-by-hop
           path selection (6), the neighbor information is simply the
           identity of the node adjacent to the source node on that
           path.  As a rule, the ``neighbor'' node must be a router and
           not a network, the only exception being the case where the
           network is the destination node (and the selected path is the
           single edge interconnecting the source to it).

   Next, we provide additional details on the operation of the algorithm
   and how the entries in the routing table are updated as the algorithm

----------------------------
6. Modifications to support explicit routing are discussed in
   Appendix D.




Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 11]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   proceeds.  For simplicity, we first describe the simpler case
   where all edges count as ``hops,'' and later explain how zero-hop
   edges are handled.  Zero-hop edges arise in the case of transit
   networks vertices, where only one of the two incoming and outgoing
   edges should be counted in the hop count computation, as they both
   correspond to the same physical hop.  Accounting for this aspect
   requires distinguishing between network and router nodes, and the
   steps involved are detailed later in this section as well as in the
   pseudo-code of Appendix A.

   When the algorithm is invoked, the routing table is first initialized
   with all bw fields set to 0 and neighbor fields cleared.  Next, the
   entries in the first column (which corresponds to one-hop paths) of
   the neighbors of the computing router are modified in the following
   way:  the bw field is set to the value of the available bandwidth
   on the direct edge from the source.  The neighbor field is set to
   the identity of the neighbor of the computing router, i.e., the next
   router on the selected path.

   Afterwards, the algorithm iterates for at most H iterations
   (considering the above initial iteration as the first).  The value
   of H could be implicit, i.e., the diameter of the network or, in
   order to better control the worst case complexity, it can be set
   explicitly thereby limiting path lengths to at most H hops.  In the
   latter case, H must be assigned a value larger than the length of
   the minimum hop-count path to any node in the graph.

   At iteration h, we first copy column h-1  into column h.  In
   addition, the algorithm keeps a list of nodes that changed their
   bw value in the previous iteration, i.e., during the (h-1)-th
   iteration.  The algorithm then looks at each link (n;m) where n is
   a node whose bw value changed in the previous iteration, and checks
   the maximal available bandwidth on an (at most) h-hop path to node
   m whose final hop is that link.  This amounts to taking the minimum
   between the bw field in entry (n;h-1) and the link metric value
   b(n;m) kept in the topology database.  If this value is higher than
   the present value of the bw field in entry (m;h), then a better
   (larger bw value) path has been found for destination m and with at
   most h hops.  The bw field of entry (m;h) is then updated to reflect
   this new value.  In the case of hop-by-hop routing, the neighbor
   field of entry (m;h) is set to the same value as in entry (n;h-1).
   This records the identity of the first hop (next hop from the source)
   on the best path identified thus far for destination m and with h
   (or less) hops.

   As mentioned earlier, extending the above algorithm to handle
   zero-hop edges is needed due to the possible use of multi-access
   networks, e.g., T/R, E/N, etc., to interconnect routers.  Such



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 12]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   entities are also represented by means of a vertex in the OSPF
   topology, but a network connecting two routers should clearly
   be considered as a single hop path rather than a two hop path.
   For example, consider three routers A, B, and C connected over
   an Ethernet network N, which the OSPF topology represents as in
   Figure 1.


                           A----N----B
                                |
                                |
                                C



                        Figure 1: Zero-Hop Edges


   In the example of Figure 1, although there are directed edges in both
   directions, an edge from the network to any of the three routers
   must have zero ``cost'', so that it is not counted twice.  It should
   be noted that when considering such environments in the context
   of QoS routing, it is assumed that some entity is responsible for
   determining the ``available bandwidth'' on the network, e.g., a
   subnet bandwidth manager.  The specification and operation of such an
   entity is beyond the scope of this document.

   Accommodating zero-hop edges in the context of the path selection
   algorithm described above is done as follows:  At each iteration h
   (starting with the first), whenever an entry (m;h) is modified, it
   is checked whether there are zero-cost edges (m;k) emerging from
   node m.  This is the case when m is a transit network.  In that
   case, we attempt to further improve the entry of node k within the
   current iteration, i.e., entry (k;h) (rather than entry (k;h+1)),
   since the edge (m;k) should not count as an additional hop.  As with
   the regular operation of the algorithm, this amounts to taking the
   minimum between the bw field in entry (m;h) and the link metric
   value b(m;k) kept in the topology database (7).  If this value is
   higher than the present value of the bw field in entry (k;h), then
   the bw field of entry (k;h) is updated to this new value.  In the

----------------------------
7. Note, that this does not say anything on
   whether to differentiate between outgoing and incoming bandwidth on a
   shared media network.  As a matter of fact, a reasonable option is to
   set the incoming bandwidth (from network to router) to infinity, and
   only use the outgoing bandwidth value to characterize bandwidth
   availability on the shared network.



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 13]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   case of hop-by-hop routing, the neighbor field of entry (k;h) is set,
   as usual, to the same value as in entry (m;h) (which is also the
   value in entry (n;h-1)).

   Note that while for simplicity of the exposition, the issue of equal
   cost, i.e., same hop count and available bandwidth, is not detailed
   in the above description, it can be easily supported.  It only
   requires that the neighbor field be expanded to record the list of
   next (previous) hops, when multiple equal cost paths are present.

Addition of Stub Networks

   As was mentioned earlier, the path selection algorithm is run
   on a graph whose vertices consist only of routers and transit
   networks and not stub networks.  This is intended to keep the
   computational complexity as low as possible as stub networks can
   be added relatively easily through a post-processing step.  This
   second processing step is similar to the one used in the current OSPF
   routing table calculation [Moy98], with some differences to account
   for the QoS nature of routes.

   Specifically, after the QoS routing table has been constructed, all
   the router vertices are again considered.  For each router, stub
   networks whose links appear in the router's link advertisements will
   be processed to determine QoS routes available to them.  The QoS
   routing information for a stub network is similar to that of routers
   and transit networks and consists of an extension to the QoS routing
   table in the form of an additional row.  The columns in that new row
   again correspond to paths of different hop counts, and contain both
   bandwidth and next hop information.  We also assume that an available
   bandwidth value has been advertised for the stub network.  As before,
   how this value is determined is beyond the scope of this document.
   The QoS routes for a stub network S are constructed as follows:

   Each entry in the row corresponding to stub network S has its bw(s)
   field initialized to zero and its neighbor set to null.  When a stub
   network S is found in the link advertisement of router V, the value
   bw(S,h) in the hth column of the row corresponding to stub network S
   is updated as follows:

   bw(S,h) = max ( bw(S,h) ; min ( bw(V,h) , b(V,S) ) ),

   where bw(V,h) is the bandwidth value of the corresponding column
   for the QoS routing table row associated with router V, i.e.,
   the bandwidth available on an h hop path to V, and b(V,S) is the
   advertised available bandwidth on the link from V to S.  The above
   expression essentially states that the bandwidth of a h hop path to
   stub network S is updated using a path through router V, only if the



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 14]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   minimum of the bandwidth of the h hop path to V and the bandwidth on
   the link between V and S is larger than the current value.

   Update of the neighbor field proceeds similarly whenever the
   bandwidth of a path through V is found to be larger than or equal
   to the current value.  If it is larger, then the neighbor field
   of V in the corresponding column replaces the current neighbor
   field of S.  If it is equal, then the neighbor field of V in the
   corresponding column is concatenated with the existing field for S,
   i.e., the current set of neighbors for V is added to the current set
   of neighbors for S.

Extracting Forwarding Information from Routing Table

   When the QoS paths are precomputed, the forwarding information for
   a flow with given destination and bandwidth requirement needs to be
   extracted from the routing table.  The case of hop-by-hop routing is
   simpler than that of explicit routing.  This is because, only the
   next hop needs to be returned instead of an explicit route.

   Specifically, assume a new request to destination, say, d, and
   with bandwidth requirements B.  The index of the destination
   vertex identifies the row in the QoS routing table that needs to be
   checked to generate a path.  Assuming that the QoS routing table was
   constructed using the Bellman-Ford algorithm presented later in this
   section, the search then proceeds by increasing index (hop) count
   until an entry is found, say at hop count or column index of h, with
   a value of the bw field which is equal to or larger than B.  This
   entry points to the initial information identifying the selected
   path.

   If the path computation algorithm stores multiple equal cost paths,
   then some degree of load balancing can be achieved at the time of
   path selection.  A next hop from the list of equivalent next hops can
   be chosen in a round robin manner, or randomly with a probability
   that is weighted by the actual available bandwidth on the local
   interface.  The latter is the method used in the implementation
   described in Section 4.

   The case of explicit routing is discussed in Appendix D.


3. OSPF Protocol Extensions

   As stated earlier, one of our goals is to limit the additions to the
   existing OSPF V2 protocol, while still providing the required level
   of support for QoS based routing.  To this end, all of the existing
   OSPF mechanisms, data structures, advertisements, and data formats



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 15]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   remain in place.  The purpose of this section of the document is to
   describe the extensions to the OSPF protocol needed to support QoS as
   outlined in the previous sections.


3.1. QoS -- Optional Capabilities

   The OSPF Options field is present in OSPF Hello packets, Database
   Description packets and all LSAs.  The Options field enables OSPF
   routers to support (or not support) optional capabilities, and to
   communicate their capability level to other OSPF routers.  Through
   this mechanism, routers of differing capabilities can be mixed
   within an OSPF routing domain.  Currently, the OSPF standard [Moy98]
   specifies the following 5 bits in the options octet:


           +-----------------------------------------------+
           |  *  |  *  | DC  |  EA | N/P |  MC |  E  |  *  |
           +-----------------------------------------------+


   Note that the least significant bit (`T' bit) that was used to
   indicate TOS routing capability in the older OSPF specification
   [Moy94] has been removed.  However, for backward compatibility with
   previous versions of the OSPF specification, TOS-specific information
   can be included in router-LSAs, summary-LSAs and AS-external-LSAs.

   We propose to reclaim the `T' bit as an indicator of router's QoS
   routing capability and refer to it as the `Q' bit.  In fact, QoS
   capability can be viewed as an extension of the TOS-capabilities and
   QoS routing as a form of TOS-based routing.  A router sets this bit
   in its hello packets to indicate that it is capable of supporting
   such routing.  When this bit is set in a router or summary links
   link state advertisement, it means that there are QoS fields to
   process in the packet.  When this bit is set in a network link
   state advertisement it means that the network described in the
   advertisement is QoS capable.

   We need to be careful in this approach so as to avoid confusing any
   old style (i.e., RFC 1583 based) TOS routing implementations.  The
   TOS metric encoding rules of QoS fields introduced further in this
   section will show how this is achieved.  Additionally, unlike the
   RFC 1583 specification that unadvertised TOS metrics be treated to
   have same cost as TOS 0, for the purpose of computing QOS routes,
   unadvertised TOS metrics (on a hop) indicate lack of connectivity for
   the specific TOS metrics (for that hop).





Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 16]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


3.2. Encoding Resources as Extended TOS

   Introduction of QoS should ideally not influence the compatibility
   with existing OSPFv2 routers.  To achieve this goal, necessary
   extensions in packet formats must be defined in a way that either
   is understood by OSPFv2 routers, ignored, or in the worst case
   ``gracefully'' misinterpreted.  Encoding of QoS metrics in the
   TOS field which fortunately enough is longer in OSPF packets than
   officially defined in [Alm92], allows us to mimic the new facility as
   extended TOS capability.  OSPFv2 routers will either disregard these
   definitions or consider those unspecified.  Specific precautions
   are taken to prevent careless OSPF implementations from influencing
   traditional TOS routers (if any) when misinterpreting the QoS
   extensions.

   For QoS resources, 32 combinations are available through the use
   of the fifth bit in TOS fields contained in different LSAs.  Since
   [Alm92] defines TOS as being four bits long, this definition never
   conflicts with existing values.  Additionally, to prevent naive
   implementations that do not take all bits of the TOS field in OSPF
   packets into considerations, the definitions of the `QoS encodings'
   is aligned in their semantics with the TOS encoding.  Only bandwidth
   and delay are specified as of today and their values map onto
   `maximize throughput' and `minimize delay' if the most significant
   bit is not taken into account.  Accordingly, link reliability and
   jitter could be defined later if necessary.


        OSPF encoding   RFC 1349 TOS values
        ___________________________________________
        0               0000 normal service
        2               0001 minimize monetary cost
        4               0010 maximize reliability
        6               0011
        8               0100 maximize throughput
        10              0101
        12              0110
        14              0111
        16              1000 minimize delay
        18              1001
        20              1010
        22              1011
        24              1100
        26              1101
        28              1110
        30              1111

        OSPF encoding   `QoS encoding values'



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 17]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


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

        32             10000
        34             10001
        36             10010
        38             10011
        40             10100 bandwidth
        42             10101
        44             10110
        46             10111
        48             11000 delay
        50             11001
        52             11010
        54             11011
        56             11100
        58             11101
        60             11110
        62             11111


        Representing TOS and QoS in OSPF.



3.2.1. Encoding bandwidth resource

   Given the fact that the actual metric field in OSPF packets only
   provides 16 bits to encode the value used and that links supporting
   bandwidth ranging into Gbits/s are becoming reality, linear
   representation of the available resource metric is not feasible.  The
   solution is exponential encoding using appropriately chosen implicit
   base value and number bits for encoding mantissa and the exponent.
   Detailed considerations leading to the solution described are not
   presented here but can be found in [Prz95].

   Given a base of 8, the 3 most significant bits should be reserved for
   the exponent part and the remaining 13 for the mantissa.  This allows
   a simple comparison for two numbers encoded in this form, which is
   often useful during implementation.

   The following table shows bandwidth ranges covered when using
   different exponents and the granularity of possible reservations.


        exponent
        value x         range (2^13-1)*8^x      step 8^x
        -------------------------------------------------
        0               8,191                   1



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 18]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


        1               65,528                  8
        2               524,224                 64
        3               4,193,792               512
        4               33,550,336              4,096
        5               268,402,688             32,768
        6               2,147,221,504           262,144
        7               17,177,772,032          2,097,152

          Ranges of Exponent Values for 13 bits,
               base 8 Encoding, in Bytes/s



   The bandwidth encoding rule may be summarized as:  ``represent
   available bandwidth in 16 bit field as a 3 bit exponent (with assumed
   base of 8) followed by a 13 bit mantissa as shown below


        0       8       16
        |       |       |
        -----------------
       |EXP| MANT        |
        -----------------



   and advertise 2's complement of the above representation.''

   Thus, the above encoding advertises a numeric value that is

       2^16 -1 -(exponential encoding of the available bandwidth):

   This has the property of advertising a higher numeric value for lower
   available bandwidth, a notion that is consistent with that of cost.

   Although it may seem slightly pedantic to insist on the property
   that less bandwidth is expressed higher values, it has, besides
   consistency, a robustness aspect in it.  A router with a poor OSPF
   implementation could misuse or misunderstand bandwidth metric as
   normal administrative cost provided to it and compute spanning trees
   with a ``normal'' Dijkstra.  The effect of a heavily congested link
   advertising numerically very low cost could be disastrous in such
   a scenario.  It would raise the link's attractiveness for future
   traffic instead of lowering it.  Evidence that such considerations
   are not speculative, but similar scenarios have been encountered, can
   be found in [Tan89].





Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 19]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   Concluding with an example, assume a link with bandwidth of 8
   Gbits/s = 1024^3 Bytes/s, its encoding would consist of an exponent
   value of 6 since 1024^3= 4,096*8^6, which would then have a
   granularity of 8^6  or approx. 260 kBytes/s.  The associated binary
   representation would then be %(110) 0 1000 0000 0000% or 53,248 (8).
   The bandwidth cost (advertised value) of this link when it is idle,
   is then the 2's complement of the above binary representation, i.e.,
   %(001) 1 0111 1111 1111% which corresponds to a decimal value of
   (2^16 - 1) - 53,248 = 12,287.  Assuming now a current reservation
   level of 6;400 Mbits/s = 200 * 1024^2, there remains 1;600 Mbits/s of
   available bandwidth on the link.  The encoding of this available
   bandwidth of 1'600 Mbits/s is 6,400 * 8^5, which corresponds to
   a granularity of 8^5 or approx. 30 kBytes/s, and has a binary
   representation of %(101) 1 1001 0000 0000% or decimal value of
   47,360.  The advertised cost of the link with this load level, is
   then %(010) 0 0110 1111 1111%, or (2^16-1) -47,360 = 18,175.

   Note that the cost function behaves as it should, i.e., the less
   bandwidth is available on a link, the higher the cost and the less
   attractive the link becomes.  Furthermore, the targeted property of
   better granularity for links with less bandwidth available is also
   achieved.  It should, however, be pointed out that the numbers given
   in the above examples match exactly the resolution of the proposed
   encoding, which is of course not always the case in practice.  This
   leaves open the question of how to encode available bandwidth
   values when they do not exactly match the encoding.  The standard
   practice is to round it to the closest number.  Because we are
   ultimately interested in the cost value for which it may be better
   to be pessimistic than optimistic, we choose to round costs up and,
   therefore, bandwidth down.


3.2.2. Encoding Delay

   Delay is encoded in microseconds using the same exponential method
   as described for bandwidth except that the base is defined to be 4
   instead of 8.  Therefore, the maximum delay that can be expressed is
   (2^13-1) *4^7 i.e., approx. 134 seconds.


3.3. Packet Formats

   Given the extended TOS notation to account for QoS metrics,
   no changes in packet formats are necessary except for the

----------------------------
8. exponent in parenthesis




Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 20]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   (re)introduction of T-bit as the Q-bit in the options field.  Routers
   not understanding the Q-bit should either not consider the QoS
   metrics distributed or consider those as `unknown' TOS.

   To support QoS, there are additions to two Link State Advertisements,
   the Router Links Advertisement and the Summary Links Advertisement.
   As stated above, a router identifies itself as supporting QoS by
   setting the Q-bit in the options field of the Link State Header.
   When a router that supports QoS receives either the Router Links or
   Summary Links Advertisement, it should parse the QoS metrics encoded
   in the received Advertisement.


3.4. Calculating the Inter-area Routes

   This document proposes a very limited use of OSPF areas, that is, it
   is assumed that summary links advertisements exist for all networks
   in the area.  This document does not discuss the problem of providing
   support for area address ranges and QoS metric aggregation.  This is
   left for further studies.


3.5. Open Issues

   Support for AS External Links, Virtual Links, and incremental updates
   for summary link advertisements are not addressed in this document
   and are left for further study.  For Virtual Links that do exist, it
   is assumed for path selection that these links are non-QoS capable
   even if the router advertises QoS capability.  Also, as stated
   earlier, this document does not address the issue of non-QoS routers
   within a QoS domain.


4. A Reference Implementation based on GateD

   In this section we report on the experience gained from implementing
   the pre-computation based approach of Section 2.3.1 in the
   GateD [Con] environment.  First, we briefly introduce the GateD
   environment, and then present some details on how the QoS extensions
   were implemented in this environment.  Finally, we discuss issues
   that arose during the implementation effort and present some
   measurement based results on the overhead that the QoS extensions
   impose on a QoS capable router and a network of QoS routers.  For
   further details on the implementation study, the reader is referred
   to [AGK99].  Additional performance evaluation based on simulations
   can be found in [AGKT98].





Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 21]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


4.1. The Gate Daemon (GateD) Program

   GateD [Con] is a popular, public domain (9) program that provides a
platform for implementing routing protocols on hosts running the Unix
operating system.  The distribution of the GateD software also includes
implementations of many popular routing protocols, including the OSPF
protocol.  The GateD environment offers a variety of services useful for
implementing a routing protocol.  These services include a) support for
creation and management of timers, b) memory management, c) a simple
scheduling mechanism, d) interfaces for manipulating the host's routing
table and accessing the network, and e) route management (e.g., route
prioritization and route exchange between protocols).

   All GateD processing is done within a single Unix process, and
   routing protocols are implemented as one or several tasks.  A GateD
   task is a collection of code associated with a Unix socket.  The
   socket is used for the input and output requirements of the task.
   The main loop of GateD contains, among other operations, a select()
   call over all task sockets to determine if any read/write or error
   conditions occurred in any of them.  GateD implements the OSPF link
   state database using a radix tree for fast access to individual link
   state records.  In addition, link state records for neighboring
   network elements (such as adjacent routers) are linked together at
   the database level with pointers.  GateD maintains a single routing
   table that contains routes discovered by all the active routing
   protocols.  Multiple routes to the same destination are prioritized
   according to a set of rules and administrative preferences and
   only a single route is active per destination.  These routes are
   periodically downloaded in the host's kernel forwarding table.


4.2. Implementing the QoS Extensions of OSPF

4.2.1. Design Objectives and Scope

   One of our major design objectives was to gain substantial experience
   with a functionally complete QoS routing implementation while
   containing the overall implementation complexity.  Thus, our
   architecture was modular and aimed at reusing the existing OSPF
   code with only minimal changes.  QoS extensions were localized to
   specific modules and their interaction with existing OSPF code was
   kept to a minimum.  Besides reducing the development and testing
   effort, this approach also facilitated experimentation with different

----------------------------
9. Access to some of the more recent versions of the GateD software is
   restricted to the GateD consortium members.




Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 22]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   alternatives for implementing the QoS specific features such as
   triggering policies for link state updates and QoS route table
   computation.  Several of the design choices were also influenced by
   our assumptions regarding the core functionalities that an early
   prototype implementation of QoS routing must demonstrate.  Some of
   the important assumptions/requirements are:

    -  Support for only hop-by-hop routing.  This affected the path
       structure in the QoS routing table as it only needs to store next
       hop information.  As mentioned earlier, the structure can be
       easily extended to allow construction of explicit routes.

    -  Support for path pre-computation.  This required the creation of
       a separate QoS routing table and its associated path structure,
       and was motivated by the need to minimize processing overhead.

    -  Full integration of the QoS extensions into the GateD framework,
       including configuration support, error logging, etc.  This was
       required to ensure a fully functional implementation that could
       be used by others.

    -  Ability to allow experimentation with different approaches, e.g.,
       use of different update and pre-computation triggering policies
       with support for selection and parameterization of these policies
       from the GateD configuration file.

    -  Decoupling from local traffic and resource management components,
       i.e., packet classifiers and schedulers and local call admission.
       This is supported by providing an API between QoS routing and the
       local traffic management module, which hides all internal details
       or mechanisms.  Future implementations will be able to specify
       their own mechanisms for this module.

    -  Interface to RSVP. The implementation assumes that RSVP [RZB+97]
       is the mechanism used to request routes with specific QoS
       requirements.  Such requests are communicated through an
       interface based on [GKR97], and used the RSVP code developed at
       ISI, version 4.2a2 [RZB+97].

   In addition, our implementation also relies on several of the
   simplifying assumptions made earlier in this document, namely:

    -  The scope of QoS route computation is currently limited to a
       single area.

    -  All routers within the area are assumed to run a QoS enabled
       version of OSPF, i.e., inter-operability with non-QoS aware
       versions of the OSPF protocol is not considered.



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 23]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


    -  All interfaces on a router are assumed to be QoS capable.


4.2.2. Architecture

   The above design decisions and assumptions resulted in the
   architecture shown in Figure 2.  It consists of three major
   components:  the signaling component (RSVP in our case); the QoS
   routing component; and the traffic manager.  In the rest of this
   section we concentrate on the structure and operation of the QoS
   routing component.  As can be seen in Figure 2, the QoS routing
   extensions are further divided into the following modules:

    -  Update trigger module determines when to advertise local link
       state updates.  This module implements a variety of triggering
       policies:  periodic, threshold based triggering, and class based
       triggering.  This module also implements a hold-down timer
       that enforces minimum spacing between two consecutive update
       triggerings from the same node.

    -  Pre-computation trigger module determines when to perform QoS
       path pre-computation.  So far, this module implements only
       periodic pre-computation triggering.

    -  Path pre-computation module computes the QoS routing table based
       on the QoS specific link state information as described in
       Section 2.3.1.

    -  Path selection and management module selects a path for a request
       with particular QoS requirements, and manages it once selected,
       i.e., reacts to link or reservation failures.  Path selection
       is performed as described in Section 2.3.1.  Path management
       functionality is not currently supported.

    -  QoS routing table module implements the QoS specific routing
       table, which is maintained independently of the other GateD
       routing tables.

    -  Tspec mapping module maps request requirements expressed in the
       form of RSVP Tspecs and Rspecs into the bandwidth requirements
       that QoS routing uses.


4.3. Major Implementation Issues

   Mapping the above design to the framework of the GateD implementation
   of OSPF led to a number of issues and design decisions.  These
   issues mainly fell under two categories:  a) interoperation of the



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 24]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998



                    +--------------------------------------------------+
                    |              +-----------------------------+     |
                    |              | QoS Route Table Computation |     |
                    |              +-----------------------------+     |
                    |                 |                    |           |
                    |                 V                    |           |
                    |  +-----------------+                 |           |
       +-------------->| QoS Route Table |                 |           |
       |            |  +-----------------+                 |           |
       |            |                                      |           |
       |            |  +----------------------+     +---------------+  |
       |            |  | Core OSPF Functions  |     | Precomputation|  |
       |            |  |        +             |     | Trigger       |  |
       |            |  | (Enhanced) Topology  |     +---------------+  |
       |            |  | Data Base            |             |          |
       |            |  +----------------------+             |          |
       |            |         |           |                 |          |
       |            |         |       +----------------------------+   |
       |            |         |       | Receive and update QoS-LSA |   |
       |            |         |       +----------------------------+   |
       |            |         |                             |          |
       |            |         |                    +----------------+  |
       |            |         |                    | Local Interface|  |
       |            |         |                    | Status Monitor |  |
       |            |         |                    +----------------+  |
+----------------+  |         |                            |           |
| Path Selection |  |    +--------------+          +----------------+  |
| & Management   |  |    | Build and    |          | Link State     |  |
+----------------+  |    | Send QoS-LSA |----------| Update Trigger |  |
       |            |    +--------------+          +----------------+  |
+----------------+  |                                           |      |
| QoS Parameter  |  |                                           |      |
| Mapping        |  |        OSPF with QoS Routing Extensions   |      |
|----------------+  +-------------------------------------------|------+
       |                                                        |
+----------------+                                          +----------+
| QoS Route      |                                          | Local    |
| Request Client |<---------------------------------------->| Resource |
| (e.g. RSVP)    |                                          | Manager  |
+----------------+                                          +----------+



                  Figure 2: The software architecture






Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 25]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   QoS extensions with pre-existing similar OSPF mechanisms, and b)
   structure, placement, and organization of the QoS routing table.
   Next, we briefly discuss these issues and justify the resulting
   design decisions.

   The ability to trigger link state updates in response to changes
   in bandwidth availability on interfaces is an essential component
   of the QoS extensions.  Mechanisms for triggering these updates
   and controlling their rate have been mentioned in Section 2.2.  In
   addition, OSPF implements its own mechanism for triggering link state
   updates as well as its own hold down timer, which may be incompatible
   with what is used for the QoS link state updates.  We handle such
   potential conflicts as follows.  First, since OSPF triggers updates
   on a periodic basis with low frequency, we expect these updates to
   be only a small part of the total volume of updates generated.  As
   a result, we chose to maintain the periodic update triggering of
   OSPF. Resolving conflicts in the settings of the different hold down
   timer settings requires more care.  In particular, it is important
   to ensure that the existing OSPF hold down timer does not interfere
   with QoS updates.  One option is to disable the existing OSPF timer,
   but protection against transient overloads calls for some hold down
   timer, albeit with a small value.  As a result, the existing OSPF
   hold down timer was kept, but reduced its value to 1 second.  This
   value is low enough (actually is the lowest possible, since GateD
   timers have a maximum resolution of 1 second) so that it does not
   interfere with the generation of the QoS link state updates, which
   will actually often have hold down timers of their own with higher
   values.  An additional complexity is that the triggering of QoS
   link state updates needs to be made aware of updates performed by
   OSPF itself.  This is necessary, as regular OSPF updates also carry
   bandwidth information, and this needs to be considered by QoS updates
   to properly determine when to trigger a new link state update.

   Another existing OSPF mechanism that has the potential to interfere
   with the extensions needed for QoS routing, is the support for
   delayed acknowledgments that allows aggregation of acknowledgments
   for multiple LSAs.  Since link state updates are maintained in
   retransmission queues until acknowledged, excessive delay in the
   generation of the acknowledgement combined with the increased
   rates of QoS updates may result in overflows of the retransmission
   queues.  To avoid these potential overflows, this mechanism was
   bypassed altogether and LSAs received from neighboring routers were
   immediately acknowledged.  Another approach which was considered but
   not implemented, was to make QoS LSAs unreliable, i.e., eliminate
   their acknowledgments, so as to avoid any potential interference.
   Making QoS LSAs unreliable would be a reasonable design choice
   because of their higher frequency compared to the regular LSAs and
   the reduced impact that the loss of a QoS LSA has on the protocol



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 26]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   operation.  Note that the loss of a QoS LSA does not interfere with
   the base operation of OSPF, and only transiently reduces the quality
   of paths discovered by QoS routing.

   The structure and placement of the QoS routing table also raises some
   interesting implementation issues.  Pre-computed paths are placed
   into a QoS routing table.  This table is implemented as a set of path
   structures, one for each destination, which contain all the available
   paths to this destination.  In order to be able to efficiently locate
   individual path structures, an access structure is needed.  In order
   to minimize the develpement effort, the radix tree structure used
   for the regular GateD routing tables was reused.  In addition, the
   QoS routing table was kept independent of the GateD routing tables
   to conform to the design goal of localizing changes and minimizing
   the impact on the existing OSPF code.  An additional reason for
   maintaining the QoS routing separate and self-contained is that it is
   re-computed under conditions that are different from those used for
   the regular routing tables.

   Furthermore, since the QoS routing table is re-built frequently,
   it must be organized so that its computation is efficient.  A
   common operation during the computation of the QoS routing table
   is mapping a link state database entry to the corresponding path
   structure.  In order to make this operation efficient, the link
   state database entries were extended to contain a pointer to the
   corresponding path structure.  In addition, when a new QoS routing
   table is to be computed, the previous one must be de-allocated.
   This is accomplished by traversing the radix tree in-order, and
   de-allocating each node in the tree.  This full de-allocation of the
   QoS routing table is potentially wasteful, especially since memory
   allocation and de-allocation is an expensive operation.  Furthermore,
   because path pre-computations are typically not triggered by changes
   in topology, the set of destinations will usually remain the same
   and correspond to an unchanged radix tree.  A natural optimization
   would then be to de-allocate only the path structures and maintain
   the radix tree.  A further enhancement would be to maintain the
   path structures as well, and attempt to incrementally update them
   only when required.  However, despite the potential gains, these
   optimizations have not been included in the initial implementation.
   The main reason is that they involve subtle and numerous checks to
   ensure the integrity of the overall data structure at all times,
   e.g., correctly remove failed destinations from the radix tree and
   update the tree accordingly.








Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 27]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


4.4. Bandwidth and Processing Overhead of QoS Routing

   After completing the implementation outlined in the previous
   sections, it was possible to perform an experimental study of
   the cost and nature of the overhead of the QoS routing extensions
   proposed in this document.  In particular, using a simple setup
   consisting of two interconnected routers, it is possible to measure
   the cost of individual QoS routing related operations.  These
   operations are:  a) computation of the QoS routing table, b)
   selection of a path from the QoS routing table, c) generation of a
   link state update, and d) reception of a link state update.  Note
   that the last two operations are not really specific to QoS routing
   since regular OSPF also performs them.  Nevertheless, we expect the
   more sensitive update triggering mechanisms required for effective
   QoS routing to result in increased number of updates, making the
   cost of processing updates an important component of the QoS routing
   overhead.  An additional cost dimension is the memory required
   for storing the QoS routing table.  Scaling of the above costs
   with increasing sizes of the topology database was investigated by
   artificially populating the topology databases of the routers under
   measurement.

   Table 1 shows how the measured costs depend on the size of the
   topology.  The topology used in the measurements was built by
   replicating a basic building block consisting of four routers
   connected with transit networks in a rectangular arrangement.  The
   details of the topology and the measurements can be found in [AGK99].
   The system running the GateD software was an IBM IntelliStation Z Pro
   with a Pentium Pro processor at 200 MHz, 64 MBytes or real memory,
   running FreeBSD 2.2.5-RELEASE and GateD 4.  From the results of
   Table 1, one can observe that the cost of path pre-computation is
   not much higher than that of the regular SPF computation.  However,
   path pre-computation may need to be performed much more often
   than the SPF computation, and this can potentially lead to higher
   processing costs.  This issue was investigated in a set of subsequent
   experiments, that are described later in this section.  The other
   cost components reported in Table 1 include memory, and it can be
   seen that the QoS routing table requires roughly 80% more memory
   than the regular routing table.  Finally, the cost of selecting a
   path is found to be very small compared to the path pre-computation
   times.  As expected, all the measured quantities increase as the size
   of the topology increases.  In particular, the storage requirements
   and the processing costs for both SPF computation and QoS path
   pre-computation scale almost linearly with the network size.

   In addition to the stand alone costs reported in Table 1, it
   is important to assess the actual operational load induced by
   QoS routing in the context of a large network.  Since it is not



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 28]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


______________________________________________________________________________
|______Link_state_database_size_______|_25_|__49_|__81__|__121_|__169_|__225_|
|_____Regular_SPF_time_(microsec)_____|215_|_440_|_747__|_1158_|_1621_|_2187_|
|Path_Pre-computation_time_(microsec)_|736_|_1622|_2883_|_4602_|_6617_|_9265_|
|___SPF_routing_table_size_(bytes)____|2608|_4984|_8152_|_12112|_16864|_22408|
|___QoS_routing_table_size_(bytes)____|3924|_7952|_13148|_19736|_27676|_36796|
|___Path_Selection_time_(microsec)____|_.7_|_1.6_|__2.8_|__4.6_|__6.6_|__9.2_|


                 Table 1: Stand alone QoS routing costs




   practical to reproduce a large scale network in a lab setting,
   the approach used was to combine simulation and measurements.
   Specifically, a simulation was used to obtain a time stamped trace
   of QoS routing related events that occur in a given router in a
   large scale network.  The trace was then used to artificially induce
   similar load conditions on a real router and its adjacent links.
   In particular, it was used to measure the processing load at the
   router and bandwidth usage that could be attributed to QoS updates.
   A more complete discussion of the measurement method and related
   considerations can be found in [AGK99].

   The use of a simulation further allows the use of different
   configurations, where network topology is varied together with other
   QoS parameters such as a) period of pre-computation, and b) threshold
   for triggering link state updates.  The results reported here were
   derived using two types of topologies.  One based on a regular but
   artificial 8x8 mesh network, and another (isp) which has been used
   in several previous studies [AGKT98, AT98] and that approximates the
   network of a nation-wide ISP. As far as pre-computation periods are
   concerned, three values of 1, 5 and 50 seconds were chosen, and for
   the triggering of link state update thresholds of 10% and 80% were
   used.  These values were selected as they cover a wide range in terms
   of precision of pre-computed paths and accuracy of the link state
   information available at the routers.  Also note that 1 second is the
   smallest pre-computation period allowed by GateD.

   Table 2 provides results on the processing load at the router
   driven by the simulation trace, for the two topologies and different
   combinations of QoS parameters, i.e., pre-computation period and
   threshold for triggering link state updates.  Table 3 gives the
   bandwidth consumption of QoS updates on the links adjacent to the
   router.





Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 29]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


    ________________________________________________________________
    |_____________________|_________Pre-computation_Period_________|
    |Link_state_threshold_|___1_sec____|____5_sec____|____50_sec___|
    |_________10%_________|.45%_(1.6%)_|__.29%_(2%)__|__.17%_(3%)__|
    |_________80%_________|.16%_(2.4%)_|__.04%_(3%)__|_.02%_(3.8%)_|

                                  isp

    ________________________________________________________________
    |_________10%_________|3.37%_(2.1%)|_2.23%_(3.3%)|_1.78%_(7.7%)|
    |_________80%_________|1.54%_(5.4%)|_.42%_(6.6%)_|_.14%_(10.4%)|

                               8x8 mesh
       Table 2: Router processing load and (bandwidth blocking).




   In Table 2, processing load is expressed as the percentage of the
   total CPU resources that are consumed by GateD processing.  The
   same table also shows the routing performance that is achieved
   for each combination of QoS parameters, so that comparison of the
   different processing cost/routing performance trade-offs can be
   made.  Routing performance is measured using the bandwidth blocking
   ratio, defined as the sum of requested bandwidth of the requests
   that were rejected over the total offered bandwidth.  As can be
   seen from Table 2, processing load is low even when the QoS routing
   table is recomputed every second, and LSAs are generated every time
   the available bandwidth on a link changes by more than 10% of the
   last advertised value.  This seems to indicate that given today's
   processor technology, QoS routing should not be viewed as a costly
   enhancement, at least not in terms of its processing requirements.
   Another general observation is that while network size has obviously
   an impact, it does not seem to drastically affect the relative
   influence of the different parameters.  In particular, despite the
   differences that exist between the isp and mesh topologies, changing
   the pre-computation period or the update threshold translates into
   essentially similar relative changes.

   Similar conclusions can be drawn for the update traffic shown in
   Table 3.  In all cases, this traffic is only a small fraction of
   the link's capacity.  Clearly, both the router load and the link
   bandwidth consumption depend on the router and link that was the
   target of the measurements and will vary for different choices.  The
   results shown here are meant to be indicative, and a more complete
   discussion can be found in [AGK99].





Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 30]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


                _______________________________________
                |_Link_state_threshold_|_______________|
                |_________10%__________|3112_bytes/sec_|
                |_________80%__________|177_bytes/sec__|

                                  isp
                ________________________________________
                |_________10%__________|15438_bytes/sec_|
                |_________80%__________|1053_bytes/sec__|

                               8x8 mesh
                   Table 3: Link state update traffic




   Summarizing, by carrying out the implementation of the proposed QoS
   routing extensions to OSPF we demonstrated that such extensions are
   fairly straightforward to implement.  Furthermore, by measuring
   the performance of the real system we were able to demonstrate
   that the overheads associated with QoS routing are not excessive,
   and are definitely within the capabilities of modern processor and
   workstation technology.


5. Security Considerations

   The QoS extensions proposed in this document do not raise any
   security considerations that are in addition to the ones associated
   with regular OSPF. The security considerations of OSPF are presented
   in [Moy98].  However, it should be noted that this document assumes
   the availability of some entity responsible for assessing the
   legitimacy of QoS requests.  For example, when the protocol used for
   initiating QoS requests is the RSVP protocol, this capability can be
   provided through the use of RSVP Policy Decision Points and Policy
   Enforcement Points as described in [YPG97].  Similarly, a policy
   server enforcing the acceptability of QoS requests by implementing
   decisions based on the rules and languages of [RMK+98], would also
   be capable of providing the desired functionality.












Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 31]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


                               APPENDICES


A. Pseudocode for the BF Based Pre-Computation Algorithm

Note:  The pseudocode below assumes a hop-by-hop forwarding approach in
   updating the neighbor field.  The modifications needed to support
   explicit route construction are straightforward.  The pseudocode
   also does not handle equal cost multi-paths for simplicity, but the
   modification needed to add this support are straightforward.

Input:
  V = set of vertices, labeled by integers 1 to N.
  L = set of edges, labeled by ordered pairs (n,m) of vertex labels.
  s = source vertex (at which the algorithm is executed).
  For all edges (n,m) in L:
    * b(n,m) = available bandwidth (according to last received update)
    on interface associated with the edge between vertices n and m.
    * If(n,m) outgoing interface corresponding to edge (n,m) when n is
      a router.
  H = maximum hop-count (at most the graph diameter).

Type:
  tab_entry: record
                 bw = integer,
                 neighbor = integer 1..N.

Variables:
  TT[1..N, 1..H]: topology table, whose (n,h) entry is a tab_entry record, such
                  that:
                    TT[n,h].bw is the maximum available bandwidth (as known
                      thus far) on a path of at most h hops between
                      vertices s and n,
                    TT[n,h].neighbor is the first hop on that path (a neighbor
                      of s). It is either a router or the destination n.

  S_prev: list of vertices that changed a bw value in the TT table
          in the previous iteration.
  S_new: list of vertices that changed a bw value (in the TT table
          etc.) in the current iteration.

The Algorithm:

begin;

  for n:=1 to N do  /* initialization */
  begin;
    TT[n,0].bw := 0;



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 32]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


    TT[n,0].neighbor := null
    TT[n,1].bw := 0;
    TT[n,1].neighbor := null
  end;
  TT[s,0].bw := infinity;

  reset S_prev;
  for all neighbors n of s do
  begin;
    TT[n,1].bw := max( TT[n,1].bw, b[s,n]);
    if (TT[n,1].bw = b[s,n]) then TT[n,1].neighbor := If(s,n);
             /* need to make sure we are picking the maximum */
             /* bandwidth path for routers that can be reached */
             /* through both networks and point-to-point links */
       if (n is a router) then
           S_prev :=  S_prev union {n}
             /* only a router is added to S_prev, */
             /* if it is not already included in S_prev */
       else     /* n is a network: */
             /* proceed with network--router edges, without */
             /* counting another hop */
          for all (n,k) in L, k <> s, do
             /* i.e., for all other neighboring routers of n */
          begin;
          TT[k,1].bw := max( min( TT[n,1].bw, b[n,k]), TT[k,1].bw );
             /* In case k could be reached through another path */
             /* (a point-to-point link or another network) with */
             /* more bandwidth, we do not want to update TT[k,1].bw */
          if (min( TT[n,1].bw, b[n,k]) = TT[k,1].bw )
             /* If we have updated TT[k,1].bw by going through */
             /* network n  */
          then TT[k,1].neighbor := If(s,n);
             /* neighbor is interface to network n */
          if ( {k} not in S_prev) then S_prev :=  S_prev union {k}
             /* only routers are added to S_prev, but we again need */
             /* to check they are not already included in S_prev */
          end
  end;


  for h:=2 to H do   /* consider all possible number of hops */
  begin;
    reset S_new;
    for all vertices m in V do
    begin;
      TT[m,h].bw := TT[m,h-1].bw;
      TT[m,h].neighbor := TT[m,h-1].neighbor
    end;



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 33]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


    for all vertices n in S_prev do
             /* as shall become evident, S_prev contains only routers */
    begin;
      for all edges (n,m) in L do
      if min( TT[n,h-1].bw, b[n,m]) > TT[m,h].bw then
      begin;
        TT[m,h].bw := min( TT[n,h-1].bw, b[n,m]);
        TT[m,h].neighbor := TT[n,h-1].neighbor;
        if m is a router then S_new :=  S_new union {m}
             /* only routers are added to S_new */
        else /* m is a network: */
             /* proceed with network--router edges, without counting them as */
             /* another hop */
        for all (m,k) in L, k <> n,
             /* i.e., for all other neighboring routers of m */
        if min( TT[m,h].bw, b[m,k]) > TT[k,h].bw then
        begin;
             /* Note: still counting it as the h-th hop, as (m,k) is a */
             /* network--router edge */
          TT[k,h].bw := min( TT[m,h].bw, b[m,k]);
          TT[k,h].neighbor := TT[m,h].neighbor;
          S_new :=  S_new union {k}
             /* only routers are added to S_new */
        end
      end
    end;
    S_prev := S_new;
            /* the two lists can be handled by a toggle bit */
    if S_prev=null then h=H+1   /* if no changes then exit */
  end;

end.



B. On-Demand Dijkstra Algorithm for QoS Path Computation

   In the main text, we described an algorithm that allows
   pre-computation of QoS routes.  However, it may be feasible in
   some instances, e.g., limited number of requests for QoS routes,
   to instead perform such computations on-demand, i.e., upon receipt
   of a request for a QoS route.  The benefit of such an approach is
   that depending on how often recomputation of pre-computed routes is
   triggered, on-demand route computation can yield better routes by
   using the most recent link metrics available.  Another benefit of
   on-demand path computation is the associated storage saving, i.e.,
   there is no need for a QoS routing table.  This is essentially the
   standard trade-off between memory and processing cycles.



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 34]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   In this section, we briefly describe how a standard Dijkstra
   algorithm can, for a given destination and bandwidth requirement,
   generate a minimum hop path that can accommodate the required
   bandwidth and also has maximum bandwidth.  Because the Dijkstra
   algorithm is already used in the current OSPF route computation,
   only differences from the standard algorithm are described.  Also,
   while for simplicity we do not consider here zero-hop edges, the
   modification required for supporting them is straightforward.

   The algorithm essentially performs a minimum hop path computation,
   on a graph from which all edges, whose available bandwidth is less
   than that requested by the flow triggering the computation, have been
   removed.  This can be performed either through a pre-processing step,
   or while running the algorithm by checking the available bandwidth
   value for any edge that is being considered (see the pseudocode that
   follows).  Another modification to a standard Dijkstra based minimum
   hop count path computation, is that the list of equal cost next
   (previous) hops which is maintained as the algorithm proceeds, needs
   to be sorted according to available bandwidth.  This is to allow
   selection of the minimum hop path with maximum available bandwidth.
   Alternatively, the algorithm could also be modified to, at each step,
   only keep among equal hop count paths the one with maximum available
   bandwidth.  This would essentially amount to considering a cost that
   is function of both hop count and available bandwidth.

Note:  The pseudocode below assumes a hop-by-hop forwarding approach in
   updating the neighbor field.  Addition of routes to stub networks is
   done in a second phase as usual.  The modifications needed to support
   explicit route construction are straightforward.  The pseudocode
   also does not handle equal cost multi-paths for simplicity, but the
   modifications needed to add this support are also easily done.

Input:
  V = set of vertices, labeled by integers 1 to N.
  L = set of edges, labeled by ordered pairs (n,m) of vertex labels.
  s = source vertex (at which the algorithm is executed).
  For all edges (n,m) in L:
    * b(n,m) = available bandwidth (according to last received update)
    on interface associated with the edge between vertices n and m.
    * If(n,m) = outgoing interface corresponding to edge (n,m) when n is
      a router.
  d = destination vertex.
  B = requested bandwidth for the flow served.

Type:
  tab_entry: record
                 hops = integer,
                 neighbor = integer 1..N,



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 35]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


                 ontree = boolean.

Variables:
  TT[1..N]: topology table, whose (n) entry is a tab_entry
                  record, such that:
                    TT[n].bw is the available bandwidth (as known
                        thus far) on a shortest-path between
                        vertices s and n,
                    TT[n].neighbor is the first hop on that path (a neighbor
                        of s). It is either a router or the destination n.
  S: list of candidate vertices;
  v: vertex under consideration;


The Algorithm:

begin;
  for n:=1 to N do  /* initialization */
  begin;
    TT[n].hops := infinity;
    TT[n].neighbor := null;
    TT[n].ontree := FALSE;
  end;
  TT[s].hops := 0;

  reset S;
  v:= s;
  while v <> d do
  begin;
    TT[v].ontree := TRUE;
    for all edges (v,m) in L and b(v,m) >= B do
    begin;
      if m is a router
      begin;
        if not TT[m].ontree then
        begin;
          /* bandwidth must be fulfilled since all links >= B */
          if TT[m].hops > TT[v].hops + 1 then
          begin
            S := S union { m };
            TT[m].hops := TT[v].hops + 1;
            TT[m].neighbor := v;
          end;
        end;
      end;
      else /* must be a network, iterate over all attached routers */
      begin; /* each network -- router edge treated as zero hop edge */
        for all (m,k) in L, k <> v,



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 36]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


             /* i.e., for all other neighboring routers of m */
        if not TT[k].ontree and b(m,k) >= B then
        begin;
          if TT[k].hops > TT[v].hops  then
          begin;
            S := S union { k };
            TT[k].hops := TT[v].hops;
            TT[k].neighbor := v;
          end;
        end;
      end;
    end; /* of all edges from the vertex under consideration */

    if S is empty then
    begin;
      v=d; /* which will end the algorithm */
    end;
    else
    begin;
      v := first element of S;
      S := S - {v}; /* remove and store the candidate to consider */
    end;
  end; /* from processing of the candidate list */
end.



C. Precomputation Using Dijkstra Algorithm

   This appendix outlines a Dijkstra-based algorithm that allows
   pre-computation of QoS routes for all destinations and bandwidth
   values.  The benefit of using a Dijkstra-based algorithm is a greater
   synergy with existing OSPF implementations.  The solution to compute
   all ``best'' paths is to consecutively compute shortest path spanning
   trees starting from a complete graph and removing links with less
   bandwidth than the threshold used in the previous computation.  This
   yields paths with possibly better bandwidth but of course more hops.
   Despite the large number of Dijkstra computations involved, several
   optimizations such as incremental spanning tree computation can be
   used and allow for efficient implementations in terms of complexity
   as well as storage since the structure of computed paths leans itself
   towards path compression [ST83].  Details including measurements and
   applicability studies can be found in [Prz95] and [BP95].

   A variation of this theme is to trade the ``accuracy'' of the
   pre-computed paths, (i.e., the paths being generated may be of a
   larger hop count than needed) for the benefit of using a modified
   version of Dijkstra shortest path algorithm and also saving on



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 37]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   some computations.  This loss in accuracy comes from the need to
   rely on quantized bandwidth values, which are used when computing
   a minimum hop count path.  In other words, the range of possible
   bandwidth values that can be requested by a new flow is mapped into
   a fixed number of quantized values, and minimum hop count paths are
   generated for each quantized value.  For example, one could assume
   that bandwidth values are quantized as low, medium, and high, and
   minimum hop count paths are computed for each of these three values.
   A new flow is then assigned to the minimum hop path that can carry
   the smallest quantized value, i.e., low, medium, or high, larger than
   or equal to what it requested.  We restrict our discussion here to
   this ``quantized'' version of the algorithm.

   Here too, we discuss the elementary case where all edges count as
   ``hops'', and note that the modification required for supporting
   zero-hop edges is straightforward.

   As with the BF algorithm, the algorithm relies on a routing table
   that gets built as the algorithm progresses.  The structure of the
   routing table is as follows:

The QoS routing table:

    -  a K x Q matrix, where K is the number of vertices and Q is the
       number of quantized bandwidth values.

    -  The (n;q) entry contains information that identifies the
       minimum hop count path to destination n, which is capable of
       accommodating a bandwidth request of at least bw[q] (the qth
       quantized bandwidth value).  It consists of two fields:

        *  hops:  the minimal number of hops on a path between the
           source node and destination n, which can accommodate a
           request of at least bw[q] units of bandwidth.

        *  neighbor:  this is the routing information associated with
           the minimum hop count path to destination node n, whose
           available bandwidth is at least bw[q].  With a hop-by-hop
           routing approach, the neighbor information is simply the
           identity of the node adjacent to the source node on that
           path.

   The algorithm operates again on a directed graph where vertices
   correspond to routers and transit networks.  The metric associated
   with each edge in the graph is as before the bandwidth available on
   the corresponding interface, where b(n;m) is the available bandwidth
   on the edge between vertices n and m.  The vertex corresponding to
   the router where the algorithm is being run is selected as the source



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 38]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   node for the purpose of path selection, and the algorithm proceeds to
   compute paths to all other nodes (destinations).

   Starting with the highest quantization index, Q, the algorithm
   considers the indices consecutively, in decreasing order.  For each
   index q, the algorithm deletes from the original network topology all
   links (n;m) for which b(n;m) < bw[q], and then runs on the remaining
   topology a Dijkstra-based minimum hop count algorithm  (10) between
   the source node and all other nodes (vertices) in the graph.  Note
   that as with the Dijkstra used for on-demand path computation, the
   elimination of links such that b(n;m) < bw[q] could also be performed
   while running the algorithm.

   After the algorithm terminates, the q-th column in the routing table
   is updated.  This amounts to recording in the hops field the hop
   count value of the path that was generated by the algorithm, and by
   updating the neighbor field.  As before, the update of the neighbor
   field depends on the scope of the path computation.  In the case
   of a hop-by-hop routing decision, the neighbor field is set to the
   identity of the node adjacent to the source node (next hop) on the
   path returned by the algorithm.  However, note that in order to
   ensure that the path with the maximal available bandwidth is always
   chosen among all minimum hop paths that can accommodate a given
   quantized bandwidth, a slightly different update mechanism of the
   neighbor field needs to be used in some instances.  Specifically,
   when for a given row, i.e., destination node n, the value of the
   hops field in column q is found equal to the value in column q+1
   (here we assume q<Q), i.e., paths that can accommodate bw[q] and
   bw[q+ 1] have the same hop count, then the algorithm copies the value
   of the neighbor field from entry (n;q+1) into that of entry (n;q).

Note:  The pseudocode below assumes a hop-by-hop forwarding approach in
   updating the neighbor field.  The modifications needed to support
   explicit route construction are straightforward.  The pseudocode
   also does not handle equal cost multi-paths for simplicity, but the
   modification needed to add this support have been described above.
   Details of the post-processing step of adding stub networks are
   omitted.

Input:
  V = set of vertices, labeled by integers 1 to N.
  L = set of edges, labeled by ordered pairs (n,m) of vertex labels.

----------------------------
10. Note that a Breadth-First-Search (BFS) algorithm
   [CLR90] could also be used.  It has a lower complexity, but would not
   allow reuse of existing code in an OSPF implementation.




Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 39]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


  s = source vertex (at which the algorithm is executed).
  bw[1..Q] = array of bandwidth values to ``quantize'' flow requests to.
  For all edges (n,m) in L:
    * b(n,m) = available bandwidth (according to last received update)
    on interface associated with the edge between vertices n and m.
    * If(n,m) = outgoing interface corresponding to edge (n,m) when n is
      a router.

Type:
  tab_entry: record
                 hops = integer,
                 neighbor = integer 1..N,
                 ontree = boolean.

Variables:
  TT[1..N, 1..Q]: topology table, whose (n,q) entry is a tab_entry
                  record, such that:
                    TT[n,q].bw is the available bandwidth (as known
                        thus far) on a shortest-path between
                        vertices s and n accommodating bandwidth b(q),
                    TT[n,q].neighbor is the first hop on that path (a neighbor
                        of s). It is either a router or the destination n.
  S: list of candidate vertices;
  v: vertex under consideration;
  q: ``quantize'' step

The Algorithm:

begin;
  for r:=1 to Q do
  begin;
    for n:=1 to N do  /* initialization */
    begin;
      TT[n,r].hops     := infinity;
      TT[n,r].neighbor := null;
      TT[n,r].ontree   := FALSE;
    end;
    TT[s,r].hops := 0;
  end;

  for r:=1 to Q do
  begin;
    S = {s};
    while S not empty do
    begin;
      v := first element of S;
      S := S - {v}; /* remove and store the candidate to consider */
      TT[v,r].ontree := TRUE;



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 40]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


      for all edges (v,m) in L and b(v,m) >= bw[r] do
      begin;
        if m is a router
        begin;
          if not TT[m,r].ontree then
          begin;
            /* bandwidth must be fulfilled since all links >= bw[r] */
            if TT[m,r].hops > TT[v,r].hops + 1 then
            begin
              S := S union { m };
              TT[m,r].hops := TT[v,r].hops + 1;
              TT[m,r].neighbor := v;
            end;
          end;
        end;
        else /* must be a network, iterate over all attached
                routers */
        begin;
          for all (m,k) in L, k <> v,
               /* i.e., for all other neighboring routers of m */
          if not TT[k,r].ontree and b(m,k) >= bw[r] then
          begin;
            if TT[k,r].hops > TT[v,r].hops + 2 then
            begin;
              S := S union { k };
              TT[k,r].hops := TT[v,r].hops + 2;
              TT[k,r].neighbor := v;
            end;
          end;
        end;
      end; /* of all edges from the vertex under consideration */
    end; /* from processing of the candidate list */
  end; /* of ``quantize'' steps */
end.



D. Explicit Routing Support

   As mentioned before, the scope of the path selection process can
   range from simply returning the next hop on the QoS path selected for
   the flow, to specifying the complete path that was computed, i.e.,
   an explicit route.  Obviously, the information being returned by the
   path selection algorithm differs in these two cases, and constructing
   it imposes different requirements on the path computation algorithm
   and the data structures it relies on.  While the presentation of
   the path computation algorithms focused on the hop-by-hop routing
   approach, the same algorithms can be applied to generate explicit



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 41]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   routes with minor modifications.  These modifications and how they
   facilitate constructing explicit routes are discussed next.

   The general approach to facilitate construction of explicit routes
   is to update the neighbor field differently from the way it is done
   for hop-by-hop routing as described in Section 2.3.  Recall that in
   the path computation algorithms the neighbor field is updated to
   reflect the identity of the router adjacent to the source node on
   the partial path computed.  This facilitates returning the next hop
   at the source for the specific path.  In the context of explicit
   routing, the neighbor information is updated to reflect the identity
   of the previous router on the path.

   In general, there can be multiple equivalent paths for a given hop
   count.  Thus, the neighbor information is stored as a list rather
   than single value.  Associated with each neighbor, additional
   information is stored to facilitate load balancing among these
   multiple paths at the time of path selection.  Specifically, we store
   the advertised available bandwidth on the link from the neighbor to
   the destination in the entry.

   With this change, the basic approach used to extract the complete
   list of vertices on a path from the neighbor information in the QoS
   routing table is to proceed `recursively' from the destination to
   the origin vertex.  The path is extracted by stepping through the
   precomputed QoS routing table from vertex to vertex, and identifying
   at each step the corresponding neighbor (precursor) information.  The
   process is described as recursive since the neighbor node identified
   in one step becomes the destination node for table look up in the
   next step.  Once the source router is reached, the concatenation of
   all the neighbor fields that have been extracted forms the desired
   explicit route.  This applies to algorithms of Section 2.3.1 and
   Appendix C.  If at a particular stage there are multiple neighbor
   choices (due to equal cost multi-paths), one of them can be chosen
   at random with a probability that is weighted, for example, by the
   associated bandwidth on the link from the neighbor to the (current)
   destination.

   Specifically, assume a new request to destination, say, d, and with
   bandwidth requirements B.  The index of the destination vertex
   identifies the row in the QoS routing table that needs to be checked
   to generate a path.  The row is then searched to identify a suitable
   path.  If the Bellman-Ford algorithm of Section 2.3.1 was used, the
   search proceeds by increasing index (hop) count until an entry is
   found, say at hop count or column index of h, with a value of the bw
   field that is equal to or greater than B.  This entry points to the
   initial information identifying the selected path.  If the Dijkstra
   algorithm of Appendix C is used, the first quantized value qB such



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 42]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   that qB  >=   B is first identified, and the associated column then
   determines the first entry in the QoS routing table that identifies
   the selected path.

   Once this first entry has been identified, reconstruction of the
   complete list of vertices on the path proceeds similarly, whether the
   table was built using the algorithm of Section 2.3.1 or Appendix C.
   Specifically, in both cases, the neighbor field in each entry points
   to the previous node on the path from the source node and with the
   same bandwidth capabilities as those associated with the current
   entry.  The complete path is, therefore, reconstructed by following
   the pointers provided by the neighbor field of successive entries.

   In the case of the Bellman-Ford algorithm of Section 2.3.1, this
   means moving backwards in the table from column to column, using at
   each step the row index pointed to by the neighbor field of the entry
   in the previous column.  Each time, the corresponding vertex index
   specified in the neighbor field is pre-pended to the list of vertices
   constructed so far.  Since we start at column h, the process ends
   when the first column is reached, i.e., after h steps, at which
   point the list of vertices making up the path has been reconstructed.

   In the case of the Dijkstra algorithm of Appendix C, the backtracking
   process is similar although slightly different because of the
   different relation between paths and columns in the routing table,
   i.e., a column now corresponds to a quantized bandwidth value instead
   of a hop count.  The backtracking now proceeds along the column
   corresponding to the quantized bandwidth value needed to satisfy the
   bandwidth requirements of the flow.  At each step, the vertex index
   specified in the neighbor field is pre-pended to the list of vertices
   constructed so far, and is used to identify the next row index to
   move to.  The process ends when an entry is reached whose neighbor
   field specifies the origin vertex of the flow.  Note that since there
   are as many rows in the table as there are vertices in the graph,
   i.e., N, it could take up to N steps before the process terminates.

   Note that the identification of the first entry in the routing table
   is identical to what was described for the hop-by-hop routing case.
   However, as described in this section, the update of the neighbor
   fields while constructing the QoS routing tables, is being performed
   differently in the explicit and hop-by-hop routing cases.  Clearly,
   two different neighbor fields can be kept in each entry and updates
   to both could certainly be performed jointly, if support for both
   explicit routing and hop-by-hop routing is needed.







Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 43]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


References

   [AGK99]  G. Apostolopoulos, R. Guerin, and S. Kamat.  Implementation
            and performance meassurements of QoS routing extensions to
            OSPF.  In Proceedings of Infocomm'99, page to appear, New
            York, NY, April 1999.

   [AGKT98] G. Apostolopoulos, R. Guerin, S. Kamat, and S. K. Tripathi.
            QoS routing:  A performance perspective.  In Proceedings of
            ACM SIGCOMM'98, Vancouver, Canada, October 1998.

   [Alm92]  P. Almquist.  Type of Service in the Internet Protocol
            Suite.  INTERNET-RFC, July 1992.

   [AT98]   G. Apostolopoulos and S. K. Tripathi.  On reducing the
            processing cost of on-demand QoS path computation.  In
            Proceedings of ICNP'98, pages 80--89, Austin, TX, October
            1998.

   [BP95]   J.-Y. Le Boudec and T. Przygienda.  A Route Pre-Computation
            Algorithm for Integrated Services Networks.  Journal of
            Network and Systems Management, 3(4), 1995.

   [Car79]  B. Carre.  Graphs and Networks.  Oxford University Press,
            ISBN 0-19-859622-7, Oxford, UK, 1979.

   [CLR90]  T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, and R. L. Rivest.
            Introduction to Algorithms.  MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
            1990.

   [Con]    Merit GateD Consortium.  The Gate Daemon (GateD) project.

   [GJ79]   M.R. Garey and D.S. Johnson.  Computers and Intractability.
            Freeman, San Francisco, 1979.

   [GKH97]  R. Guerin, S. Kamat, and S. Herzog.  QoS Path Management
            with RSVP.  In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Global Internet
            Mini-Conference, Phoenix, AZ, November 1997.

   [GKR97]  R. Guerin, S. Kamat, and E. Rosen.  An extended RSVP
            routing interface.  INTERNET-DRAFT, June 1997.  work in
            progress.

   [GLG+97] Der-Hwa Gan, T. Li, R. Guerin, E. Rosen, and S. Kamat.
            Setting up reservations on explicit paths using RSVP.
            INTERNET-DRAFT, December 1997.  work in progress.





Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 44]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   [GO97]   R. Guerin and A. Orda.  QoS-Based Routing in Networks
            with Inaccurate Information:  Theory and Algorithms.  In
            Proceedings of INFOCOM'97, pages 75--83, Kobe, Japan, April
            1997.

   [GOW97]  R. Guerin, A. Orda, and D. Williams.  QoS Routing
            Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions.  In Proceedings of the 2nd
            IEEE Global Internet Mini-Conference, Phoenix, AZ, November
            1997.

   [KNB98]  F. Baker K. Nichols, S. Blake and D. Black.  Definition of
            the differentiated services field (DS field) in the IPv4
            and IPv6 headers.  INTERNET-DRAFT, October 1998.  work in
            progress.

   [LO98]   D. H. Lorenz and A. Orda.  QoS Routing in Networks with
            Uncertain Parameters.  IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking,
            6(6):768--778, December 1998.

   [Moy94]  J. Moy.  OSPF Version 2.  INTERNET-RFC 1583, March 1994.

   [Moy98]  J. Moy.  OSPF Version 2.  INTERNET-RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [Prz95]  A. Przygienda.  Link State Routing with QoS in ATM
            LANs.  Ph.D. Thesis Nr. 11051, Swiss Federal Institute of
            Technology, April 1995.

   [RMK+98] R. Rajan, J. C. Martin, S. Kamat, M. See, R. Chaudhury,
            D. Verma, G. Powers, and R. Yavatkar.  Schema for
            differentiated services and integrated services in
            networks.  INTERNET-DRAFT, October 1998.  work in progress.

   [RZB+97] R. Braden (Ed.), L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, and
            S. Jamin.  Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) version 1,
            functional specification.  INTERNET-DRAFT, June 1997.  work
            in progress.

   [SPG97]  S. Shenker, C. Partridge, and R. Guerin.  Specification of
            Guaranteed Quality of Service -- RFC No. 2212.  Internet
            RFC, November 1997.

   [ST83]   D.D. Sleator and R.E. Tarjan.  A Data Structure for Dynamic
            Trees.  Journal of Computer Systems, 26, 1983.

   [Tan89]  A. Tannenbaum.  Computer Networks.  Addisson Wesley, 1989.






Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 45]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998


   [YPG97]  R. Yavatkar, D. Pendarakis, and R. Guerin.  A framework for
            policy-based admission control.  INTERNET-DRAFT, November
            1997.  work in progress.



Authors' Address




   George Apostolopoulos
   IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
   P.O. Box 704
   Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
   georgeap@watson.ibm.com
   VOICE   +1 914 784-6204
   FAX     +1 914 784-6205

   Roch Guerin
   University Of Pennsylvania
   Department of Electrical Engineering, Rm 367 GRW
   200 South 33rd Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19104--6390
   guerin@ee.upenn.edu
   VOICE   +1 215-898-9351


   Sanjay Kamat
   IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
   P.O. Box 704
   Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
   sanjay@watson.ibm.com
   VOICE   +1 914 784-7402
   FAX     +1 914 784-6205

   Ariel Orda
   Dept. Electrical Engineering
   Technion - I.I.T
   Haifa, 32000 - ISRAEL
   ariel@ee.technion.ac.il
   VOICE   +011 972-4-8294646
   FAX     +011 972-4-8323041

   Tony Przygienda
   Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies
   prz@dnrc.bell-labs.com
   VOICE   +1 732 949-5936



Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 46]


Internet Draft           QoS Routing Mechanisms            14 April 1998



   Doug Williams
   IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
   P.O. Box 704
   Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
   dougw@watson.ibm.com
   VOICE   +1 914 784-5047
   FAX     +1 914 784-6318











































Guerin, et al.             Expires 19 October 1999             [Page 47]


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