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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 2386

INTERNET DRAFT
draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                May, 27, 1998


             A Framework for QoS-based Routing in the Internet

     Eric Crawley      Raj Nair     Bala Rajagopalan  Hal Sandick
     Argon Networks    Arrowpoint   NEC USA           Bay Networks



Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet Draft.  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. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
   other documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use Internet
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working
   draft" or "work in progress."

   To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check
   the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
   Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net
   (Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au
   (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu
   (US West Coast).

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   This Internet Draft expires on October, 27, 1998.


                                ABSTRACT

QoS-based routing has been recognized as a missing piece in the evolution
of QoS-based service offerings in the Internet. This document describes
some of the QoS-based routing issues and requirements, and proposes a
framework for QoS-based routing in the Internet. This framework is based
on extending the current Internet routing model of intra and interdomain
routing to support QoS.


1. SCOPE OF  DOCUMENT & PHILOSOPHY

This document proposes a framework for QoS-based routing, with the
objective of fostering the development of an Internet-wide solution while
encouraging innovations in solving the many problems that arise. QoS-
based routing has many complex facets and it is recommended that the
following two-pronged approach be employed towards its development:

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 1

 1. Encourage the growth and evolution of novel intradomain QoS-based
    routing architectures. This is to allow the development of
    independent, innovative solutions that address the many QoS-based
    routing issues. Such solutions may be deployed in autonomous systems
    (ASs), large and small, based on their specific needs.

 2. Encourage simple, consistent and stable interactions between ASs
    implementing routing solutions developed as above.

This approach follows the traditional separation between intra and
interdomain routing. It allows solutions like QOSPF [GKOP98, ZSSC97],
Integrated PNNI [IPNNI] or other schemes to be deployed for intradomain
routing without any restriction, other than their ability to interact
with a common, and perhaps simple, interdomain routing protocol. The need
to develop a single, all encompassing solution to the complex problem of
QoS-based routing is therefore obviated. As a practical matter, there are
many different views on how QoS-based routing should be done. Much
overall progress can be made if an opportunity exists for various ideas
to be developed and deployed concurrently, while some consensus on the
interdomain routing architecture is being developed.  Finally, this
routing model is perhaps the most practical from an evolution point of
view. It is superfluous to say that the eventual success of a QoS-based
Internet routing architecture would depend on the ease of evolution.

The aim of this document is to describe the QoS-based routing issues,
identify basic requirements on intra and interdomain routing, and
describe an extension of the current interdomain routing model to support
QoS. It is not an objective of this document to specify the details of
intradomain QoS-based routing architectures.  This is left up to the
various intradomain routing efforts that might follow.  Nor is it an
objective to specify the details of the interface between reservation
protocols such as RSVP and QoS-based routing. The specific interface
functionality needed, however, would be clear from the intra and
interdomain routing solutions devised.  In the intradomain area, the goal
is to develop the basic routing requirements while allowing maximum
freedom for the development of solutions. In the interdomain area, the
objectives are to identify the QoS-based routing functions, and
facilitate the development or enhancement of a routing protocol that
allows relatively simple interaction between domains.

In the next section, a glossary of relevant terminology is given. In
Section 3, the objectives of QoS-based routing are described and the
issues that must be dealt with by QoS-based Internet routing efforts are
outlined. In Section 4, some requirements on intradomain routing are
defined. These requirements are purposely broad, putting few constraints
on solution approaches. The interdomain routing model and issues are
described in Section 5 and QoS-based multicast routing is discussed in
Section 6.  The interaction between QoS-based routing and resource
reservation protocols is briefly considered in Section 7. Related work is
described in Section 8. Finally, summary and conclusions are presented in
Section 9.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 2

2.  GLOSSARY

The following glossary lists the terminology used in this document and
an explanation of what is meant. Some of these terms may have different
connotations, but when used in this document, their meaning is as given.

Alternate Path Routing : A routing technique where multiple paths, rather
than just the shortest path, between a source and a destination are
utilized to route traffic. One of the objectives of alternate path
routing is to distribute load among multiple paths in the network.

Autonomous System (AS): A routing domain which has a common administrative
authority and consistent internal routing policy. An AS may employ
multiple intradomain routing protocols internally and interfaces to other
ASs via a common interdomain routing protocol.

Source: A host or router that can be identified by a unique unicast IP
address.

Unicast destination: A host or router that can be identified by a unique
unicast IP address.

Multicast destination: A multicast IP address indicating all hosts and
routers that are members of the corresponding group.

IP flow (or simply "flow"): An IP packet stream from a source to a
destination (unicast or multicast) with an associated Quality of Service
(QoS) (see below) and higher level demultiplexing  information. The
associated QoS could be "best-effort".

Quality-of-Service (QoS): A set of service requirements to be met by the
network while transporting a flow.

Service class: The definitions of the semantics and parameters of a
specific type of QoS.

Integrated services:  The Integrated Services model for the Internet
defined in RFC 1633 allows for integration of QoS services with the best
effort services of the Internet.  The Integrated Services (IntServ)
working group in the IETF has defined two service classes, Controlled
Load Service [W97] and Guaranteed Service [SPG97].

RSVP:  The ReSerVation Protocol [BZBH97].  A QoS signaling protocol for
the Internet.

Path: A unicast or multicast path.

Unicast path: A sequence of links from an IP source to a unicast IP
destination, determined by the routing scheme for forwarding packets.

Multicast path (or Multicast Tree): A subtree of the network topology in
which all the leaves and zero or more interior nodes are members of the
same multicast group. A multicast path may be per-source, in which case
the subtree is rooted at the source.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 3

Flow set-up: The act of establishing state in routers along a path to
satisfy the QoS requirement of a flow.

Crankback: A technique where a flow setup is recursively backtracked
along the partial flow path up to the first node that can determine an
alternative path to the destination.

QoS-based routing: A routing mechanism under which paths for flows are
determined based on some knowledge of resource availability in the
network as well as the QoS requirement of flows.

Route pinning: A mechanism to keep a flow path fixed for a duration of
time.

Flow Admission Control (FAC): A process by which it is determined whether
a link or a node has sufficient resources to satisfy the QoS required for
a flow. FAC is typically applied by each node in the path of a flow
during flow set-up to check local resource availability.

Higher-level admission control: A process by which it is determined
whether or not a flow set-up should proceed, based on estimates and
policy requirements of the overall resource usage by the flow. Higher-
level admission control may result in the failure of a flow set-up even
when FAC at each node along the flow path indicates resource availability.


3.  QOS-BASED ROUTING: BACKGROUND AND ISSUES

3.1  Best-Effort and QoS-Based Routing
     ---------------------------------

Routing deployed in today's Internet is focused on connectivity and
typically supports only one type of datagram service called "best effort"
[WC96]. Current Internet routing protocols, e.g. OSPF, RIP, use
"shortest path routing", i.e. routing that is optimized for a single
arbitrary metric, administrative weight or hop count. These routing
protocols are also "opportunistic," using the current shortest path
or route to a destination. Alternate paths with acceptable but non-optimal
cost can not be used to route traffic (shortest path routing protocols do
allow a router to alternate among several equal cost paths to a destination).

QoS-based routing must extend the current routing paradigm in three basic
ways.  First, to support traffic using integrated-services class of services,
multiple paths between node pairs will have to be calculated. Some of these
new classes of service will require the distribution of additional routing
metrics, e.g. delay, and available bandwidth. If any of these metrics change
frequently, routing updates can become more frequent thereby consuming network
bandwidth and router CPU cycles.

Second, today's opportunistic routing will shift traffic from one path
to another as soon as a "better" path is found.  The traffic will be
shifted even if the existing path can meet the service requirements of
the existing traffic.  If routing calculation is tied to frequently

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 4

changing consumable resources (e.g. available bandwidth) this change will
happen more often and can introduce routing oscillations as traffic
shifts back and forth between alternate paths. Furthermore, frequently
changing routes can increase the variation in the delay and jitter experienced
by the end users.

Third, as mentioned earlier, today's optimal path routing algorithms
do not support alternate routing.   If the best existing path cannot admit
a new flow, the associated traffic cannot be forwarded even if an adequate
alternate path exists.


3.2 QoS-Based Routing and Resource Reservation
    ------------------------------------------

It is important to understand the difference between QoS-based routing and
resource reservation.  While resource reservation protocols such as RSVP
[BZBH97] provide a method for requesting and reserving network resources,
they do not provide a mechanism for determining a network path that has
adequate resources to accommodate the requested QoS.  Conversely,
QoS-based routing allows the determination of a path that has a good
chance of accommodating the requested QoS, but it does not include a
mechanism to reserve the required resources.

Consequently, QoS-based routing is usually used in conjunction with some
form of resource reservation or resource allocation mechanism. Simple forms
of QoS-based routing have been used in the past for Type of Service (TOS)
routing [M91].  In the case of OSPF, a different shortest-path tree can be
computed for each of the 8 TOS values in the IP header [ISI81]. Such
mechanisms can be used to select specially provisioned paths but do not
completely assure that resources are not overbooked along the path.  As long
as strict resource management and control are not needed, mechanisms such
as TOS-based routing are useful for separating whole classes of traffic
over multiple routes.  Such mechanisms might work well with the emerging
Differential Services efforts [BBCD98].

Combining a resource reservation protocol with QoS-based routing allows
fine control over the route and resources at the cost of additional
state and setup time. For example, a protocol such as RSVP may be used to
trigger QoS-based routing calculations to meet the needs of a specific flow.

3.3  QoS-Based Routing: Objectives
     -----------------------------

Under QoS-based routing,  paths for flows would be determined based on
some knowledge of resource availability in the network, as well as the
QoS requirement of flows. The main objectives of QoS-based routing are:

1.  Dynamic determination of feasible paths:  QoS-based routing can
    determine a path, from among possibly many choices, that has a good
    chance of accommodating the QoS of the given flow. Feasible path
    selection may be subject to policy constraints, such as path cost,
    provider selection, etc.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 5

2.  Optimization of resource usage: A network state-dependent QoS-based
    routing scheme can aid in the efficient utilization of network
    resources by improving the total network throughput. Such a routing
    scheme can be the basis for efficient network engineering.

3.  Graceful performance degradation: State-dependent routing can
    compensate for transient inadequacies in network engineering (e.g.,
    during focused overload conditions), giving better throughput and a
    more graceful performance degradation as compared to a state-
    insensitive routing scheme [A84].

QoS-based routing in the Internet, however, raises many issues:

-  How do routers determine the QoS capability of each outgoing link and
   reserve link resources? Note that some of these links may be virtual,
   over ATM networks and others may be broadcast multi-access links.

-  What is the granularity of routing decision (i.e., destination-based,
   source and destination-based, or flow-based)?

-  What routing metrics are used and how are QoS-accommodating paths
   computed for unicast flows?

-  How are QoS-accommodating paths computed for multicast flows with
   different reservation styles and receiver heterogeneity?

-  What are the performance objectives while computing QoS-based paths?

-  What are the administrative control issues?

-  What factors affect the routing overheads?, and

-  How is scalability achieved?

Some of these issues are discussed briefly next. Interdomain routing is
discussed in Section 5.

3.4  QoS Determination and Resource Reservation
     ------------------------------------------

To determine whether the QoS requirements of a flow can be accommodated
on a link, a router must be able to determine the QoS available on the
link. It is still an open issue as to how the QoS availability is
determined for broadcast multiple access links (e.g., Ethernet). A
related problem is the reservation of resources over such links.
Solutions to these problems are just emerging [GPSS98].

Similar problems arise when a router is connected to a large non-
broadcast multiple access network, such as ATM. In this case, if the
destination of a flow is outside the ATM network, the router may have
multiple egress choices. Furthermore, the QoS availability on the ATM
paths to each egress point may be different. The issues then are,

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 6

   o   how does a router determine all the egress choices across the ATM
       network?
   o   how  does it determine what QoS is available over the path to each
       egress point?, and
   o   what QoS value does the router advertise for the ATM link.

Typically, IP routing over ATM (e.g., NHRP) allows the selection of a
single egress point in the ATM network, and the procedure does not
incorporate any knowledge of the QoS required over the path. An approach
like I-PNNI [IPNNI] would be helpful here, although it introduces some
complexity.

An additional problem with resource reservation is how to determine what
resources have already been allocated to a multicast flow. The availability
of this information during path computation improves the chances of finding
a path to add a new receiver to a multicast flow. QOSPF [ZSSC97] handles
this problem by letting routers broadcast reserved resource information to
other routers in their area. Alternate path routing [ZES97] deals with this
issue by using probe messages to find a path with sufficient resources. Path
QoS Computation (PQC) method, proposed in [GOA97], propagates bandwidth
allocation information in RSVP PATH messages. A router receiving the PATH
message gets an indication of the resource allocation only on those links in
the path to itself from the source.  Allocation for the same flow on other
remote branches of the multicast tree is not available. Thus, the PQC method
may not be sufficient to find feasible QoS-accommodating paths to all receivers.

3.5  Granularity of Routing Decision
     -------------------------------

Routing in the Internet is currently based only on the destination
address of a packet.  Many multicast routing protocols require routing
based on the source AND destination of a packet. The Integrated Services
architecture and RSVP allow QoS determination for an individual flow
between a source and a destination. This set of routing granularities
presents a problem for QoS routing solutions.

If routing based only on destination address is considered, then an intermediate
router will route all flows between different sources and a given destination
along the same path. This is acceptable if the path has adequate capacity but
a problem arises if there are multiple flows to a destination that exceed the
capacity of the link.

One version of QOSPF [ZSSC97] determines QoS routes based on source and
destination address.  This implies that all traffic between a given source
and destination, regardless of the flow, will travel down the same
route.  Again, the route must have capacity for all the QoS traffic for
the source/destination pair.  The amount of routing state also
increases since the routing tables must include source/destination pairs
instead of just the destination.

The best granularity is found when routing is based on individual flows
but this incurs a tremendous cost in terms of the routing state.  Each QoS
flow can be routed separately between any source and destination. PQC [GOA97]

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 7

and alternate path routing [ZES97], are examples of solutions which operate
at the flow level.

Both source/destination and flow-based routing may be susceptible to
packet looping under hop-by-hop forwarding. Suppose a node along a flow or
source/destination-based path loses the state information for the flow.
Also suppose that the flow-based route is different from the regular
destination-based route. The potential then exists for a routing loop to
form when the node forwards a packet belonging to the flow using its
destination-based routing table to a node that occurs earlier on the
flow-based path. This is because the latter node may use its flow-based
routing table to forward the packet again to the former and this can
go on indefinitely.

3.6   Metrics and Path Computation
      ----------------------------

3.6.1 Metric Selection and Representation

There are some considerations in defining suitable link and node metrics
[WC96]. First, the metrics must represent the basic network properties of
interest. Such metrics include residual bandwidth, delay and jitter.
Since the flow QoS requirements have to be mapped onto path metrics, the
metrics define the types of QoS guarantees the network can support.
Alternatively, QoS-based routing cannot support QoS requirements that
cannot be meaningfully mapped onto a reasonable combination of path metrics.
Second, path computation based on a metric or a combination of metrics must
not be too complex as to render them impractical. In this regard, it is
worthwhile to note that path computation based on certain combinations of
metrics (e.g., delay and jitter) is theoretically hard. Thus, the
allowable combinations of metrics must be determined while taking into
account the complexity of computing paths based on these metrics and the
QoS needs of flows. A common strategy to allow flexible combinations of
metrics while at the same time reduce the path computation complexity is
to utilize "sequential filtering". Under this approach, a combination of
metrics is ordered in some fashion, reflecting the importance of
different metrics (e.g., cost followed by delay, etc.). Paths based on
the primary metric are computed first (using a simple algorithm, e.g.,
shortest path) and a subset of them are eliminated based on the secondary
metric and so forth until a single path is found. This is an approximation
technique and it trades off global optimality for path computation
simplicity (The filtering technique may be simpler, depending on the
set of metrics used. For example, with bandwidth and cost as metrics, it
is possible to first eliminate the set of links that do not have the
requested bandwidth and then compute the least cost path using the
remaining links.)

Now, once suitable link and node metrics are defined, a uniform
representation of them is required across independent domains - employing
possibly different routing schemes - in order to derive path metrics
consistently (path metrics are obtained by the composition of link and
node metrics). Encoding of the maximum, minimum, range, and granularity
of the metrics are needed. Also, the definitions of comparison and
accumulation operators are required. In addition, suitable triggers must
be defined for indicating a significant change from a minor change.  The
former will cause a routing update to be generated. The stability of the

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 8

QoS routes would depend on the ability to control the generation of
updates. With interdomain routing, it is essential to obtain a fairly
stable view of the interconnection among the ASs.

3.6.2  Metric Hierarchy

A hierarchy can be defined among various classes of service based on the
degree to which traffic from one class can potentially degrade service of
traffic from lower classes that traverse the same link. In this hierarchy,
guaranteed constant bit rate traffic is at the top and "best-effort"
datagram traffic at the bottom.  Classes providing service higher in the
hierarchy impact classes providing service in lower levels. The same
situation is not true in the other direction. For example, a datagram
flow cannot affect a real-time service. Thus, it may be necessary to
distribute and update different metrics for each type of service in the
worst case.  But, several advantages result by identifying a single
default metric.  For example, one could derive a single metric combining
the availability of datagram and real-time service over a common
substrate.

3.6.3  Datagram Flows

A delay-sensitive metric is probably the most obvious type of metric
suitable for datagram flows. However, it requires careful analysis to
avoid instabilities and to reduce storage and bandwidth requirements. For
example, a recursive filtering technique based on a simple and efficient
weighted averaging algorithm [NC94] could be used. This filter is
used to stabilize the metric. While it is adequate for smoothing most
loading patterns, it will not distinguish between patterns consisting of
regular bursts of traffic and random loading. Among other stabilizing
tools, is a minimum time between updates that can help filter out
high-frequency oscillations.

3.6.4 Real-time Flows

In real-time quality-of-service, delay variation is generally more
critical than delay as long as the delay is not too high.  Clearly,
voice-based applications cannot tolerate more than a certain level of
delay. The condition of varying delays may be expected to a greater
degree in a shared medium environment with datagrams, than in a network
implemented over a switched substrate.  Routing a real-time flow
therefore reduces to an exercise in allocating the required network
resources while minimizing fragmentation of bandwidth. The resulting
situation is a bandwidth-limited minimum hop path from a source to the
destination.  In other words, the router performs an ordered search
through paths of increasing hop count until it finds one that meets all
the bandwidth needs of the flow. To reduce contention and the probability
of false probes (due to inaccuracy in route tables), the router could
select a path randomly from a "window" of paths which meet the needs of
the flow and satisfy one of three additional criteria: best-fit,
first-fit or worst-fit. Note that there is a similarity between the
allocation of bandwidth and the allocation of memory in a multiprocessing
system. First-fit seems to be appropriate for a system with a high
real-time flow arrival rates; and worst-fit is ideal for real-time flows

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 9

with high holding times.  This rather nonintuitive result was shown in
[NC94].

3.6.5  Path Properties

Path computation by itself is merely a search technique, e.g., Shortest
Path First (SPF) is a search technique based on dynamic programming. The
usefulness of the paths computed depends to a large extent on the metrics
used in evaluating the cost of a path with respect to a flow.

Each link considered by the path computation engine must be evaluated
against the requirements of the flow, i.e., the cost of providing the
services required by the flow must be estimated with respect to the
capabilities of the link. This requires a uniform method of combining
features such as delay, bandwidth, priority and other service features.
Furthermore, the costs must reflect the lost opportunity of using each
link after routing the flow.

3.6.6  Performance Objectives

One common objective during path computation is to improve the total
network throughput.  In this regard, merely routing a flow on any path
that accommodates its QoS requirement is not a good strategy. In fact,
this corresponds to uncontrolled alternate routing [SD95] and may adversely
impact performance at higher traffic loads.  It is therefore necessary
to consider the total resource allocation for a flow along a path, in
relation to available resources, to determine whether or not the flow
should be routed on the path [RSR95].  Such a mechanism is referred to
in this document as "higher level admission control". The goal of this
is to ensure that the "cost" incurred by the network in routing a flow
with a given QoS is never more than the  revenue gained.  The routing
cost in this regard may be the lost revenue in potentially blocking other
flows that contend for the same resources. The formulation of the higher
level admission control strategy, with suitable administrative hooks and
with fairness to all flows desiring entry to the network, is an issue.
The fairness problem arises because flows with smaller reservations tend
to be more successfully routed than flows with large reservations, for a
given engineered capacity.  To guarantee a certain level of acceptance
rate for "larger" flows, without over-engineering the network, requires
a fair higher level admission control mechanism. The application of
higher level admission control to multicast routing is discussed later.

3.7   Administrative Control
      ----------------------

There are several administrative control issues. First, within an AS
employing state-dependent routing, administrative control of routing
behavior may be necessary. One example discussed earlier was higher
level admission control. Some others are described in this section.
Second, the control of interdomain routing based on policy is an issue.
The discussion of interdomain routing is defered to Section 5.

Two areas that need administrative control, in addition to appropriate
routing mechanisms, are handling flow priority with preemption, and
resource allocation for multiple service classes.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 10

3.7.1  Flow Priorities and Preemption

If there are critical flows that must be accorded higher priority than
other types of flows, a mechanism must be implemented in the network to
recognize flow priorities. There are two aspects to prioritizing flows.
First, there must be a policy to decide how different users are allowed
to set priorities for flows they originate. The network must be able to
verify that a given flow is allowed to claim a priority level signaled
for it. Second, the routing scheme must ensure that a path with the
requested QoS will be found for a flow with a probability that increases
with the priority of the flow. In other words, for a given network load,
a high priority flow should be more likely to get a certain QoS from the
network than a lower priority flow requesting the same QoS. Routing
procedures for flow prioritization can be complex.  Identification and
evaluation of different procedures are areas that require investigation.

3.7.2 Resource Control

If there are multiple service classes, it is necessary to engineer a
network to carry the forecasted traffic demands of each class. To do
this, router and link resources may be logically partitioned among
various service classes. It is desirable to have dynamic partitioning
whereby unused resources in various partitions are dynamically shifted
to other partitions on demand [ACFH92]. Dynamic sharing, however, must
be done in a controlled  fashion in order to prevent traffic under some
service class from taking up more resources than what was engineered for
it for prolonged periods of time. The design of such a resource sharing
scheme, and its incorporation into the QoS-based routing scheme are
significant issues.


3.8   QoS-Based Routing for Multicast Flows
      -------------------------------------

QoS-based multicast routing is an important problem, especially if the
notion of higher level admission control is included. The dynamism in
the receiver set allowed by IP multicast, and receiver heterogeneity add
to the problem. With straightforward implementation of distributed
heuristic algorithms for multicast path computation [W88, C91], the
difficulty is essentially one of scalability. To accommodate QoS,
multicast path computation at a router must have knowledge of not only
the id of subnets where group members are present, but also the
identity of branches in the existing tree. In other words, routers must
keep flow-specific state information. Also, computing optimal shared
trees based on the shared reservation style [BZBH97], may require new
algorithms.  Multicast routing is discussed in some detail in Section 6.

3.9    Routing Overheads
       -----------------

The overheads incurred by a routing scheme depend on the type of the
routing scheme, as well as the implementation. There are three types of
overheads to be considered: computation, storage and communication. It
is necessary to understand the implications of choosing a routing
mechanism in terms of these overheads.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 11

For example, considering link state routing, the choice of the update
propagation mechanism is important since network state is dynamic and
changes relatively frequently. Specifically, a flooding mechanism would
result in many unnecessary message transmissions and processing.
Alternative techniques, such as tree-based forwarding [R96], have to be
considered. A related issue is the quantization of state information to
prevent frequent updating of dynamic state. While coarse quantization
reduces updating overheads, it may affect the performance of the routing
scheme.  The tradeoff has to be carefully evaluated.  QoS-based routing
incurs certain overheads during flow establishment, for example,
computing a source route. Whether this overhead is disproportionate
compared to the length of the sessions is an issue. In general,
techniques for the minimization of routing-related overheads during flow
establishment must be investigated. Approaches that are useful include
pre-computation of routes, caching recently used routes, and TOS routing
based on hints in packets (e.g., the TOS field).

3.10   Scaling by Hierarchical Aggregation
       -----------------------------------

QoS-based routing should be scalable, and hierarchical aggregation is a
common technique for scaling (e.g., [PNNI96]). But this introduces
problems with regard to the accuracy of the aggregated state information
[L95]. Also, the aggregation of paths under multiple constraints is
difficult. One of the difficulties is the risk of accepting a flow based
on inaccurate information, but not being able to support the QoS
requirements of flow because the capabilities of the actual paths that
are aggregated are not known during route computation.  Performance
impacts of aggregating path metric information must therefore be
understood. A way to compensate for inaccuracies is to use crankback,
i.e., dynamic search for alternate paths as a flow is being routed. But
crankback increases the time to set up a flow, and may adversely affect
the performance of the routing scheme under some circumstances. Thus,
crankback must be used judiciously, if at all, along with a higher level
admission control mechanism.


4. INTRADOMAIN ROUTING REQUIREMENTS

At the intradomain level, the objective is to allow as much latitude as
possible in addressing the QoS-based routing issues. Indeed, there are
many ideas about how QoS-based routing services can be provisioned within
ASs. These range from on-demand path computation based on current state
information, to statically provisioned paths supporting a few service
classes.

Another aspect that might invite differing solutions is performance
optimization. Based on the technique used for this, intradomain routing
could be very sophisticated or rather simple. Finally, the service
classes supported, as well as the specific QoS engineered for a service
class, could differ from AS to AS. For instance, some ASs may not support
guaranteed service, while others may. Also, some ASs supporting the
service may be engineered for a better delay bound than others. Thus, it
requires considerable thought to determine the high level requirements

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 12

for intradomain routing that both supports the overall view of QoS-based
routing in the Internet and allows maximum autonomy in developing
solutions.

Our view is that certain minimum requirements must be satisfied by
intradomain routing in order to be qualified as "QoS-based" routing.
These are:

- The routing scheme must route a flow along a path that can accommodate
  its QoS requirements, or indicate that the flow cannot be admitted with
  the QoS currently being requested.

- The routing scheme must indicate disruptions to the current route of a
  flow due to topological changes.

- The routing scheme must accommodate best-effort flows without any
  resource reservation requirements. That is, present best effort
  applications and protocol stacks need not have to change to run in a
  domain employing QoS-based routing.

- The routing scheme may optionally support QoS-based multicasting with
  receiver heterogeneity and shared reservation styles.

In addition, the following capabilities are also recommended:

- Capabilities to optimize resource usage.

- Implementation of higher level admission control procedures to limit
  the overall resource utilization by individual flows.

Further requirements along these lines may be specified. The requirements
should capture the consensus view of QoS-based routing, but should not
preclude particular approaches (e.g., TOS-based routing) from being
implemented. Thus, the intradomain requirements are expected to be rather
broad.


5. INTERDOMAIN ROUTING

The fundamental requirement on interdomain QoS-based routing is
scalability.  This implies that interdomain routing cannot be based on
highly dynamic network state information. Rather, such routing must be
aided by sound network engineering and relatively sparse information
exchange between independent routing domains. This approach has the
advantage that it can be realized by straightforward extensions of the
present Internet interdomain routing model. A number of issues, however,
need to be addressed to achieve this, as discussed below.

5.1 Interdomain QoS-Based Routing Model
    -----------------------------------

The interdomain QoS-based routing model is depicted below:

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 13

          AS1                   AS2             AS3
      ___________        _____________      ____________
     |           |      |             |    |            |
     |           B------B             B----B            |
     |           |      |             |    |            |
      -----B-----       B-------------      --B---------
            \         /                      /
             \       /                      /
          ____B_____B____         _________B______
         |               |       |                |
         |               B-------B                |
         |               |       |                |
         |               B-------B                |
          ---------------         ----------------
               AS4                           AS5

Here, ASs exchange standardized routing information via border nodes B.
Under this model, each AS can itself consist of a set of interconnected
ASs, with standardized routing interaction. Thus, the interdomain routing
model is hierarchical.  Also, each lowest level AS employs an intradomain
QoS-based routing scheme (proprietary or standardized by intradomain
routing efforts such as QOSPF). Given this structure, some questions that
arise are:

- What information is exchanged between ASs?

- What routing capabilities does the information exchange lead to? (E.g.,
  source routing, on-demand path computation, etc.)

- How is the external routing information represented within an AS?

- How are interdomain paths computed?

- What sort of policy controls may be exerted on interdomain path
  computation and flow routing?, and

- How is interdomain QoS-based multicast routing accomplished?

At a high level, the answers to these questions depend on the routing
paradigm. Specifically, considering link state routing, the information
exchanged between domains would consist of an abstract representation of
the domains in the form of logical nodes and links, along with metrics
that quantify their properties and resource availability.  The
hierarchical structure of the ASs may be handled by a hierarchical link
state representation, with appropriate metric aggregation.

Link state routing may not necessarily be advantageous for interdomain
routing for the following reasons:

-  One advantage of intradomain link state routing is that it would allow
   fairly detailed link state information be used to compute paths on
   demand for flows requiring QoS. The state and metric aggregation used
   in interdomain routing, on the other hand, erodes this property to a
   great degree.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 14

-  The usefulness of keeping track of the abstract topology and metrics
   of a remote domain, or the interconnection between remote domains is
   not obvious. This is especially the case when the remote topology and
   metric encoding are lossy.

-  ASs may not want to advertise any details of their internal topology
   or resource availability.

-  Scalability in interdomain routing can be achieved only if information
   exchange between domains is relatively infrequent. Thus, it seems
   practical to limit information flow between domains as much as
   possible.

Compact information flow allows the implementation QoS-enhanced versions
of existing interdomain protocols such as BGP-4. We look at the
interdomain routing issues in this context.

5.2  Interdomain Information Flow
     ----------------------------

The information flow between routing domains must enable certain basic
functions:

1.  Determination of reachability to various destinations

2.  Loop-free flow routes

3.  Address aggregation whenever possible

4.  Determination of the QoS that will be supported on the path to a
    destination. The QoS information should be relatively static,
    determined from the engineered topology and capacity of an AS rather
    than ephemeral fluctuations in traffic load through the AS. Ideally,
    the QoS supported in a transit AS should be allowed to vary
    significantly only under exceptional circumstances, such as failures
    or focused overload.

5.  Determination, optionally, of multiple paths for a given destination,
    based on service classes.

6.  Expression of routing policies, including monetary cost, as a function
    of flow parameters, usage and administrative factors.

Items 1-3 are already part of existing interdomain routing. Item 5 is
also a straightfoward extension of the current model. The main problem
areas are therefore items 4 and 6.

The QoS of an end-to-end path is obtained by composing the QoS available
in each transit AS.  Thus, border routers must first determine what the
locally available QoS is in order to advertise routes to both internal
and external destinations. The determination of local "AS metrics"
(corresponding to link metrics in the intradomain case) should not be
subject to too much dynamism. Thus, the issue is how to define such
metrics and what triggers an occasional change that results in
re-advertisements of routes.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 15

The approach suggested in this document is not to compute paths based on
residual or instantaneous values of AS metics (which can be dynamic), but
utilize only the QoS capabilities engineered for aggregate transit flows.
Such engineering may be based on the knowledge of traffic to be expected
from each neighboring ASs and the corresponding QOS needs.  This
information may be obtained based on contracts agreed upon prior to the
provisioning of services. The AS metric then corresponds to the QoS
capabilities of the "virtual path" engineered through the AS (for transit
traffic) and a different metric may be used for different neighbors. This
is illustrated in the following figure.

          AS1                   AS2             AS3
      ___________        _____________      ____________
     |           |      |             |    |            |
     |           B------B1           B2----B            |
     |           |      |             |    |            |
      -----B-----       B3------------      --B---------
            \         /
             \       /
          ____B_____B____
         |               |
         |               |
         |               |
         |               |
          ---------------
               AS4


Here, B1 may utilize an AS metric specific for AS1 when computing path
metrics to be  advertised to AS1. This metric is based on the resources
engineered in AS2 for transit traffic from AS1. Similarly, B3 may utilize
a different metric when computing path metrics to be advertised to AS4.
Now, it is assumed that as long as traffic flow into AS2 from AS1 or AS4
does not exceed the engineered values, these path metrics would hold.
Excess traffic due to transient fluctuations, however, may be handled as
best effort or marked with a discard bit.

Thus, this model is different from the intradomain model, where end nodes
pick a path dynamically based on the QoS needs of the flow to be routed.
Here, paths within ASs are engineered based on presumed, measured or
declared traffic and QoS requirements. Under this model, an AS can
contract for routes via multiple transit ASs with different QoS
requirements. For instance, AS4 above can use both AS1 and AS2 as
transits for same or different destinations. Also, a QoS contract
between one AS and another may generate another contract between the
second and a third AS and so forth.

An issue is what triggers the recomputation of path metrics within an AS.
Failures or other events that prevent engineered resource allocation
should certainly trigger recomputation. Recomputation should not be
triggered in response to arrival of flows within the engineered limit.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 16

5.3   Path Computation
      ----------------

Path computation for an external destination at a border node is based on
reachability, path metrics and local policies of selection. If there are
multiple selection criteria (e.g., delay, bandwidth, cost, etc.), mutiple
alternaives may have to be maintained as well as propagated by border
nodes. Selection of a path from among many alternatives would depend on
the QoS requests of flows, as well as policies. Path computation may also
utilze any heuristics for optimizing resource usage.

5.4  Flow Aggregation
     ----------------

An important issue in interdomain routing is the amount of flow state to
be processed by transit ASs. Reducing the flow state by aggregation
techniques must therefore be seriously considered. Flow aggregation means
that transit traffic through an AS is classified into a few aggregated
streams rather than being routed at the individual flow level. For
example, an entry border router may classify various transit flows
entering an AS into a few coarse categories, based on the egress node and
QoS requirements of the flows.  Then, the aggregated stream for a given
traffic class may be routed as a single flow inside the AS to the exit
border router. This router may then present individual flows to
different neighboring ASs and the process repeats at each entry border
router. Under this scenario, it is essential that entry border routers
keep track of the resource requirements for each transit flow and apply
admission control to determine whether the aggregate requirement from any
neighbor exceeds the engineered limit. If so, some policy must be invoked
to deal with the excess traffic. Otherwise, it may be assumed that
aggregated flows are routed over paths that have adequate resources to
guarantee QoS for the member flows. Finally, it is possible that entry
border routers at a transit AS may prefer not to aggregate flows if finer
grain routing within the AS may be more efficient (e.g., to aid load
balancing within the AS).

5.5   Path Cost Determination
      -----------------------

It is hoped that the integrated services Internet architecture would
allow providers to charge for IP flows based on their QoS requirements.
A QoS- based routing architecture can aid in distributing information on
expected costs of routing flows to various destinations via different
domains. Clearly, from a provider's point of view, there is a cost
incurred in guaranteeing QoS to flows.  This cost could be a function of
several parameters, some related to flow parameters, others based on
policy. From a user's point of view, the consequence of requesting a
particular QoS for a flow is the cost incurred, and hence the selection
of providers may be based on cost. A routing scheme can aid a provider
in distributing the costs in routing to various destinations, as a
function of several parameters, to other providers or to end users. In
the interdomain routing model described earlier, the costs to a
destination will change as routing updates are passed through a transit
domain. One of the goals of the routing scheme should be to maintain a

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 17

uniform semantics for cost values (or functions) as they are handled by
intermediate domains. As an example, consider the cost function generated
by border node B1 in domain A and passed to node B2 in domain B below.
The routing update may be injected into domain B by B2 and finally passed
to B4 in domain C by router B3. Domain B may interpret the cost value
received from domain A in any way it wants, for instance, adding a
locally significant component to it.  But when this cost value is passed
to domain C, the meaning of it must be what domain A intended, plus the
incremental cost of transiting domain B, but not what domain B uses
internally.

    Domain A                    Domain B           Domain C
     ____________          ___________      ____________
    |            |        |           |    |            |
    |            B1------B2          B3---B4            |
    |            |        |           |    |            |
     ------------          -----------      ------------

A problem with charging for a flow is the determination of the cost when
the QoS promised for the flow was not actually delivered. Clearly, when
a flow is routed via multiple domains, it must be determined whether each
domain delivers the QoS it declares possible for traffic through it.


6. QOS-BASED MULTICAST ROUTING

The goals of QoS-based multicast routing are as follows:

- Scalability to large groups with dynamic membership

- Robustness in the presence of topological changes

- Support for receiver-initiated, heterogeneous reservations

- Support for shared reservation styles, and

- Support for "global" admission control, i.e., administrative control of
  resource consumption by the multicast flow.

The RSVP multicast flow model is as follows. The sender of a multicast
flow advertises the traffic characteristics periodically to the receivers.
On receipt of an advertisement, a receiver may generate a message to
reserve resources along the flow path from the sender. Receiver
reservations may be heterogeneous. Other multicast models may be
considered.

The multicast routing scheme attempts to determine a path from the
sender to each receiver that can accommodate the requested reservation.
The routing scheme may attempt to maximize network resource utilization
by minimizing the total bandwidth allocated to the multicast flow, or by
optimizing some other measure.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 18

6.1   Scalability, Robustness and Heterogeneity
      -----------------------------------------

When addressing scalability, two aspects must be considered:

  1.  The overheads associated with receiver discovery. This overhead is
      incurred when determining the multicast tree for forwarding
      best-effort sender traffic characterization to receivers.

  2.  The overheads associated with QoS-based multicast path computation.
      This overhead is incurred when flow-specific state information has
      to be collected by a router to determine QoS-accommodating paths to
      a receiver.

Depending on the multicast routing scheme, one or both of these aspects
become important. For instance, under the present RSVP model,
reservations are established on the same path over which sender traffic
characterizations are sent, and hence there is no path computation
overhead. On the other hand, under the proposed QOSPF model [ZSSC97] of
multicast source routing, receiver discovery overheads are incurred by
MOSPF [M94] receiver location broadcasts, and additional path computation
overheads are incurred due to the need to keep track of existing flow
paths. Scaling of QoS-based multicast depends on both these scaling
issues. However, scalable best-effort multicasting is really not in the
domain of QoS-based routing work (solutions for this are being devised
by the IDMR WG [BCF94, DEFV94]). QoS-based multicast routing may build
on these solutions to achieve overall scalability.

There are several options for QoS-based multicast routing. Multicast
source routing is one under which multicast trees are computed by the
first-hop router from the source, based on sender traffic advertisements.
The advantage of this is that it blends nicely with the present RSVP
signaling model. Also, this scheme works well when receiver reservations
are homogeneous and the same as the maximum reservation derived from
sender advertisement.  The disadvantages of this scheme are the extra
effort needed to accommodate heterogeneous reservations and the
difficulties in optimizing resource allocation based on shared
reservations.

In these regards, a receiver-oriented multicast routing model seems to
have some advantage over multicast source routing. Under this model:

  1. Sender traffic advertisements are multicast over a best-effort tree
     which can be different from the QoS-accommodating tree for sender
     data.

  2. Receiver discovery overheads are minimized by utilizing a scalable
     scheme (e.g., PIM, CBT), to multicast sender traffic
     characterization.

  3. Each receiver-side router independently computes a QoS-accommodating
     path from the source, based on the receiver reservation. This path
     can be computed based on unicast routing information only, or with
     additional multicast flow-specific state information. In any case,

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 19

     multicast path computation is broken up into multiple, concurrent
     unicast path computations.

  4. Routers processing unicast reserve messages from receivers aggregate
     resource reservations from multiple receivers.

Flow-specific state information may be limited in Step 3 to achieve
scalability.  In general, limiting flow-specific information in making
multicast routing decisions is important in any routing model. The
advantages of this model are the ease with which heterogeneous
reservations can be accommodated, and the ability to handle shared
reservations. The disadvantages are the incompatibility with the present
RSVP signaling model, and the need to rely on reverse paths when link
state routing is not used. Both multicast source routing and the
receiver-oriented routing model described above utilize per-source trees
to route multicast flows. Another possibility is the utilization of
shared, per-group trees for routing flows. The computation and usage of
such trees require further work.

Finally, scalability at the interdomain level may be achieved if QoS-based
multicast paths are computed independently in each domain. This principle
is illustrated by the QOSPF multicast source routing scheme which allows
independent path computation in different OSPF areas. It is easy to
incorporate this idea in the receiver-oriented model also. An evaluation
of multicast routing strategies must take into account the relative
advantages and disadvantages of various approaches, in terms of
scalability features and functionality supported.

6.2    Multicast Admission Control
       ---------------------------

Higher level admission control, as defined for unicast, prevents
excessive resource consumption by flows when traffic load is high. Such
an admission control strategy must be applied to multicast flows when
the flow path computation is receiver-oriented or sender-oriented. In
essence, a router computing a path for a receiver must determine whether
the incremental resource allocation for the receiver is excessive under
some administratively determined admission control policy. Other
admission control criteria, based on the total resource consumption of a
tree may be defined.


7.    QOS-BASED ROUTING AND RESOURCE RESERVATION PROTOCOLS

There must clearly be a well-defined interface between routing and resource
reservation protocols. The nature of this interface, and the interaction
between routing and resource reservation has to be determined carefully
to avoid incompatibilities. The importance of this can be readily
illustrated in the case of RSVP.

RSVP has been designed to operate independent of the underlying routing
scheme. Under this model, RSVP PATH messages establish the reverse path
for RESV messages.  In essence, this model is not compatible with
QoS-based routing schemes that compute paths after receiver reservations

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 20

are received. While this incompatibility can be resolved in a simple
manner for unicast flows, multicast with heterogeneous receiver
requirements is a more difficult case.  For this, reconciliation between
RSVP and QoS-based routing models is necessary. Such a reconciliation,
however, may require some changes to the RSVP model depending on the
QoS-based routing model [ZES97, ZSSC97, GOA97]. On the other hand,
QoS-based routing schemes may be designed with RSVP compatibility as a
necessary goal. How this affects scalability and other performance
measures must be considered.

8. RELATED WORK

"Adaptive" routing, based on network state, has a long history,
especially in circuit-switched networks. Such routing has also been
implemented in early datagram and virtual circuit packet networks. More
recently, this type of routing has been the subject of study in the
context of ATM networks, where the traffic characteristics and topology
are substantially different from those of circuit-switched networks
[MMR96]. It is instructive to review the adaptive routing methodologies,
both to understand the problems encountered and possible solutions.

Fundamentally, there are two aspects to adaptive, network state-dependent
routing.

  1.  Measuring and gathering network state information, and
  2.  Computing routes based on the available information.

Depending on how these two steps are implemented, a variety of routing
techniques are possible. These differ in the following respects:

-  what state information is used
-  whether local or global state is used
-  what triggers the propagation of state information
-  whether routes are computed in a distributed or centralized manner
-  whether routes are computed on-demand, pre-computed, or in a hybrid
   manner
-  what optimization criteria, if any, are used in computing routes
-  whether source routing or hop by hop routing is used, and
-  how alternate route choices are explored

It should be noted that most of the adaptive routing work has focused on
unicast routing. Multicast routing is one of the areas that would be
prominent with Internet QoS-based routing. We treat this separately, and
the following review considers only unicast routing. This review is not
exhaustive, but gives a brief overview of some of the approaches.

8.1 Optimization Criteria
    ---------------------

The most common optimization criteria used in adaptive routing is
throughput maximization or delay minimization. A general formulation of
the optimization problem is the one in which the network revenue is
maximized, given that there is a cost associated with routing a flow over
a given path [MMR96, K88]. In general, global optimization solutions are

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 21

difficult to implement, and they rely on a number of assumptions on the
characteristics of the traffic being routed [MMR96]. Thus, the practical
approach has been to treat the routing of each flow (VC, circuit or
packet stream to a given destination) independently of the routing of
other flows. Many such routing schemes have been implemented.

8.2  Circuit Switched Networks
     -------------------------

Many adaptive routing concepts have been proposed for circuit-switched
networks. An example of a simple adaptive routing scheme is sequential
alternate routing [T88]. This is a hop-by-hop destination-based routing
scheme where only local state information is utilized.  Under this
scheme, a routing table is computed for each node, which lists multiple
output link choices for each destination. When a call set-up request is
received by a node, it tries each output link choice in sequence, until
it finds one that can accommodate the call. Resources are reserved on
this link, and the call set-up is forwarded to the next node. The set-up
either reaches the destination, or is blocked at some node. In the latter
case, the set-up can be cranked back to the previous node or a failure
declared. Crankback allows the previous node to try an alternate path.
The routing table under this scheme can be computed in a centralized or
distributed manner, based only on the topology of the network. For
instance, a k-shortest-path algorithm can be used to determine k
alternate paths from a node with distinct initial links [T88]. Some
mechanism must be implemented during path computation or call set-up to
prevent looping.

Performance studies of this scheme illustrate some of the pitfalls of
alternate routing in general, and crankback in particular [A84, M86,
YS87]. Specifically, alternate routing improves the throughput when
traffic load is relatively light, but adversely affects the performance
when traffic load is heavy. Crankback could further degrade the
performance under these conditions. In general, uncontrolled alternate
routing (with or without crankback) can be harmful in a heavily utilized
network, since circuits tend to be routed along longer paths thereby
utilizing more capacity. This is an obvious, but important result that
applies to QoS-based Internet routing also.

The problem with alternate routing is that both direct routed (i.e., over
shortest paths) and alternate routed calls compete for the same resource.
At higher loads, allocating these resources to alternate routed calls
result in the displacement of direct routed calls and hence the alternate
routing of these calls. Therefore, many approaches have been proposed to
limit the flow of alternate routed calls under high traffic loads. These
schemes are designed for the fully-connected logical topology of long
distance telephone networks (i.e., there is a logical link between every
pair of nodes). In this topology, direct routed calls always traverse a
1-hop path to the destination and alternate routed calls traverse at
most a 2-hop path.

"Trunk reservation" is a scheme whereby on each link a certain bandwidth
is reserved for direct routed calls [MS91]. Alternate routed calls are
allowed on a trunk as long as the remaining trunk bandwidth is greater

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 22

than the reserved capacity. Thus, alternate routed calls cannot totally
displace direct routed calls on a trunk. This strategy has been shown to
be very effective in preventing the adverse effects of alternate routing.

"Dynamic alternate routing" (DAR) is a strategy whereby alternate routing
is controlled by limiting the number of choices, in addition to trunk
reservation [MS91]. Under DAR, the source first attempts to use the
direct link to the destination. When blocked, the source attempts to
alternate route the call via a pre-selected neighbor. If the call is still
blocked, a different neighbor is selected for alternate routing to this
destination in the future. The present call is dropped. DAR thus requires
only local state information. Also, it "learns" of good alternate paths
by random sampling and sticks to them as long as possible.

More recent circuit-switched routing schemes utilize global state to
select routes for calls. An example is AT&T's Real-Time Network Routing
(RTNR) scheme [ACFH92]. Unlike schemes like DAR, RTNR handles multiple
classes of service, including voice and data at fixed rates. RTNR
utilizes a sophisticated per-class trunk reservation mechanism with
dynamic bandwidth sharing between classes. Also, when alternate routing
a call, RTNR utilizes the loading on all trunks in the network to select
a path. Because of the fully-connected topology, disseminating status
information is simple under RTNR; each node simply exchanges status
information directly with all others.

>From the point of view of designing QoS-based Internet routing schemes,
there is much to be learned from circuit-switched routing. For example,
alternate routing and its control, and dynamic resource sharing among
different classes of traffic. It is, however, not simple to apply some of
the results to a general topology network with heterogeneous multirate
traffic. Work in the area of ATM network routing described next
illustrates this.

8.3 ATM Networks
    ------------

The VC routing problem in ATM networks presents issues similar to that
encountered in circuit-switched networks. Not surprisingly, some
extensions of circuit-switched routing have been proposed. The goal of
these routing schemes is to achieve higher throughput as compared to
traditional shortest-path routing. The flows considered usually have a
single QoS requirement, i.e., bandwidth.

The first idea is to extend alternate routing with trunk reservation to
general topologies [SD95].  Under this scheme, a distance vector routing
protocol is used to build routing tables at each node with multiple
choices of increasing hop count to each destination. A VC set-up is first
routed along the primary ("direct") path. If sufficient resources are not
available along this path, alternate paths are tried in the order of
increasing hop count. A flag in the VC set-up message indicates primary
or alternate routing, and bandwidth on links along an alternate path is
allocated subject to trunk reservation. The trunk reservation values are
determined based on some assumptions on traffic characteristics. Because
the scheme works only for a single data rate, the practical utility of
it is limited.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 23

The next idea is to import the notion of controlled alternate routing into
traditional link state QoS-based routing [RSR95, GKR96]. To do this, first
each VC is associated with a maximum permissible routing cost. This cost
can be set based on expected revenues in carrying the VC or simply based
on the length of the shortest path to the destination. Each link is
associated with a metric that increases exponentially with its
utilization. A switch computing a path for a VC simply determines a least-
cost feasible path based on the link metric and the VC's QoS requirement.
The VC is admitted if the cost of the path is less than or equal to the
maximum permissible routing cost. This routing scheme thus limits the
extent of "detour" a VC experiences, thus preventing excessive resource
consumption. This is a practical scheme and the basic idea can be
extended to hierarchical routing. But the performance of this scheme has
not been analyzed thoroughly. A similar notion of admission control based
on the connection route was also incorporated in a routing scheme
presented in [ACG92].

Considering the ATM Forum PNNI protocol [PNNI96], a partial list of its
stated characteristics are as follows:

         o   Scales to very large networks
         o   Supports hierarchical routing
         o   Supports QoS
         o   Uses source routed connection setup
         o   Supports multiple metrics and attributes
         o   Provides dynamic routing

The PNNI specification is sub-divided into two protocols: a signaling and
a routing protocol. The PNNI signaling protocol is used to establish
point-to- point and point to multipoint connections and supports source
routing, crankback and alternate routing. PNNI source routing allows loop
free paths.  Also, it allows each implementation to use its own path
computation algorithm. Furthermore, source routing is expected to support
incremental deployment of future enhancements such as policy routing.

The PNNI routing protocol is a dynamic, hierarchical link state protocol
that propagates topology information by flooding it through the network.
The topology information is the set of resources (e.g., nodes, links and
addresses) which define the network. Resources are qualified by defined
sets of metrics and attributes (delay, available bandwidth, jitter, etc.)
which are grouped by supported traffic class.  Since some of the metrics
used will change frequently, e.g., available bandwidth, threshold
algorithms are used to determine if the change in a metric or attribute
is significant enough to require propagation of updated information.
Other features include, auto configuration of the routing hierarchy,
connection admission control (as part of path calculation) and
aggregation and summarization of topology and reachability information.

Despite its functionality, the PNNI routing protocol does not address the
issues of multicast routing, policy routing and control of alternate
routing. A problem in general with link state QoS-based routing is that
of efficient broadcasting of state information. While flooding is a
reasonable choice with static link metrics it may impact the performance
adversely with dynamic metrics.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 24

Finally, Integrated PNNI [I-PNNI] has been designed from the start to take
advantage of the QoS Routing capabilities that are available in PNNI and
integrate them with routing for layer 3.  This would provide an integrated
layer 2 and layer 3 routing protocol for networks that include PNNI in the
ATM core.  The I-PNNI specification has been under development in the ATM
Forum and, at this time, has not yet incorporated QoS routing mechanisms
for layer 3.

8.4   Packet Networks
      ---------------

Early attempts at adaptive routing in packet networks had the objective of
delay minimization by dynamically adapting to network congestion.
Alternate routing based on k-shortest path tables, with route selection
based on some local measure (e.g., shortest output queue) has been
described [R76, YS81]. The original ARPAnet routing scheme was a distance
vector protocol with delay-based cost metric [MW77]. Such a scheme was
shown to be prone to route oscillations [B82]. For this and other reasons,
a link state delay-based routing scheme was later developed for the
ARPAnet [MRR80]. This scheme demonstrated a number of techniques such as
triggered updates, flooding, etc., which are being used in OSPF and PNNI
routing today. Although none of these schemes can be called QoS-based
routing schemes, they had features that are relevant to QoS-based routing.

IBM's System Network Architecture (SNA) introduced the concept of Class
of Service (COS)-based routing [A79, GM79].  There were several classes
of service:  interactive, batch, and network control.  In addition,
users could define other classes. When starting a data session an
application or device would request a COS.  Routing would then map the
COS into a statically configured route which marked a path across the
physical network.  Since SNA is connection oriented, a session was set up
along this path and the application's or device's data would traverse
this path for the life of the session. Initially, the service delivered
to a session was based on the network engineering and current state of
network congestion. Later, transmission priority was added to subarea SNA.
Transmission priority allowed more important traffic (e.g. interactive)
to proceed before less time-critical traffic (e.g. batch) and improved
link and network utilization. Transmission priority of a session was based
on its COS.

SNA later evolved to support multiple or alternate paths between nodes.
But, although assisted by network design tools, the network administrator
still had to statically configure routes. IBM later introduced SNA's
Advanced Peer to Peer Networking (APPN) [B85]. APPN added new features to
SNA including dynamic routing based on a link state database. An
application would use COS to indicate it traffic requirements and APPN
would calculate a path capable of meeting these requirements.  Each COS
was mapped to a table of acceptable metrics and parameters that qualified
the nodes and links contained in the APPN topology Database.  Metrics and
parameters used as part of the APPN route calculation include, but are not
limited to:  delay, cost per minute, node congestion and security.  The
dynamic nature of APPN allowed it to route around failures and reduce
network configuration.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 25

The service delivered by APPN was still based on the network engineering,
transmission priority and network congestion.  IBM later introduced
an extension to APPN, High Performance Routing (HPR)[IBM97]. HPR uses
a congestion avoidance algorithm called adaptive rate
based (ARB) congestion control.  Using predictive feedback methods, the
ARB algorithm prevents congestion and improves network utilization.  Most
recently, an extension to the COS table has been defined so that HPR
routing could recognize and take advantage of ATM QoS capabilities.

Considering IP routing, both IDRP [R92] and OSPF support  type of service
(TOS)-based routing. While the IP header has a TOS field, there is no
standardized way of utilizing it for TOS specification and routing. It
seems possible to make use of the IP TOS feature, along with TOS-based
routing and proper network engineering, to do QoS-based routing. The
emerging differentiated services model is generating renewed interest in
TOS support. Among the newer schemes, Source Demand Routing (SDR)
[ELRV96] allows  on-demand path computation by routers and the
implementation of strict and loose source routing. The Nimrod
architecture [CCM96] has a number of concepts built in to handle
scalability and specialized path computation. Recently, some work has
been done on QoS-based routing schemes for the integrated services
Internet. For example, in [M98], heuristic schemes for efficient routing
of flows with bandwidth and/or delay constraints is described and
evaluated.

9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this document, a framework for QoS-based Internet routing was defined.
This framework adopts the traditional separation between intra and
interdomain routing. This approach is especially meaningful in the case
of QoS-based routing, since there are many views on how QoS-based routing
should be accomplished and many different needs. The objective of this
document was to encourage the development of different solution
approaches for intradomain routing, subject to some broad requirements,
while consensus on interdomain routing is achieved. To this end, the QoS-
based routing issues were described, and some broad intradomain routing
requirements and an interdomain routing model were defined. In addition,
QoS-based multicast routing was discussed and a detailed review of
related work was presented.

The deployment of QoS-based routing across multiple administrative
domains requires both the development of intradomain routing schemes and
a standard way for them to interact via a well-defined interdomain
routing mechanism. This document, while outlining the issues that must
be addressed, did not engage in the specification of the actual features
of the interdomain routing scheme. This would be the next step in the
evolution of wide-area, multidomain QoS-based routing.


draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 26

REFERENCES

[A79]    V. Ahuja, "Routing and Flow Control in SNA" IBM Systems Journal,
         18 No. 2, pp.  298-314, 1979.

[A84]    J. M. Akinpelu, "The Overload Performance of Engineered Networks
         with Non-Hierarchical Routing," AT&T Technical Journal, Vol. 63,
         pp. 1261-1281, 1984.

[ACFH92] G. R. Ash, J. S. Chen, A. E. Frey and B. D. Huang, "RealTime
         Network Routing in a Dynamic Class-of-Service Network,"
         Proceedings of ITC 13, 1992.

[ACG92]  H. Ahmadi, J. Chen, and R. Guerin, "Dynamic Routing and Call
         Control in High-Speed Integrated Networks," Proceedings of
         ITC-13, pp. 397-403, 1992.

[B82]    D. P. Bertsekas, "Dynamic Behavior of Shortest Path Routing
         Algorithms for Communication Networks," IEEE Trans. Auto.
         Control, pp. 60-74, 1982.

[B85]    A. E. Baratz, "SNA Networks of Small Systems", IEEE JSAC, May,
         1985.

[BBCD98] D. Black, S. Blake, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, and W. Weiss,
         "An Architecture for Differentiated Services," work in progress,
         May, 1998.

[BCF94]  A. Ballardie, J. Crowcroft and P. Francis, "Core-Based Trees: A
         Scalable Multicast Routing Protocol," Proceedings of SIGCOMM `94.

[BCS94]  R. Braden, D. Clark, and S. Shenker, "Integrated Services in the
         Internet Architecture: An Overview," RFC 1633, July, 1994.

[BZ92]   S. Bahk and M. El Zarki, "Dynamic Multi-Path Routing and How it
         Compares with Other Dynamic Routing Algorithms for High Speed
         Wide Area Networks," Proc. SIGCOMM `92, pp. 53-64, 1992.

[BZBH97] R. Braden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jamin. Resource
         ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Spec.  RFC
         2205, September, 1997.

[C91]    C-H. Chow, "On Multicast Path Finding Algorithms," Proceedings
         of the IEEE INFOCOM `91, pp. 1274-1283, 1991.

[CCM96]  I. Castineyra, J. N. Chiappa, and M. Steenstrup, "The Nimrod
         Routing Architecture," RFC 1992, August, 1996.

[DEFV94] S. E. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinnacci, V. Jacobson, C-G. Liu,
         and L. Wei, "An Architecture for Wide-Area Multicast Routing,"
         Technical Report, 94-565, ISI, University of Southern California,
         1994.

[ELRV96] D. Estrin, T. Li, Y. Rekhter, K. Varadhan, and D.  Zappala,
         "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and Forwarding Spec.
         (Version 1)," RFC 1940, May, 1996.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 27

[GKR96]  R. Gawlick, C. R. Kalmanek, and K. G. Ramakrishnan, "On-Line
         Routing of Permanent Virtual Circuits," Computer Communications,
         March, 1996.

[GPSS98] A. Ghanwani, J. W. Pace, V. Srinivasan, A. Smith and M. Seaman,
         "A Framework for Providing Integrated Services over Shared and
         Switched IEEE 802 LAN Technologies," work in progress, March,
         1998.

[GM79]   J. P. Gray, T. B. McNeil, "SNA Multi-System Networking," IBM
         Systems Journal, 18 No. 2, pp.  263-297, 1979.

[GOA97]  Y. Goto, M. Ohta and K. Araki, "Path QoS Collection for Stable
         Hop-by-Hop QoS Routing," Proc. INET '97, June, 1997.

[GKOP98] R. Guerin, S. Kamat, A. Orda, T. Przygienda, and D. Williams,
         "QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF extensions," work in
         progress, March, 1998.

[IBM97]  IBM Corp, SNA APPN - High Performance Routing Architecture
         Reference, Version 2.0, SV40-1018, February 1997.

[IPNNI]  ATM Forum Technical Committee. Integrated PNNI (I-PNNI) v1.0
         Specification. af-96-0987r1, September 1996.

[ISI81]  USC-ISI, "Internet Protocol," RFC 791, September, 1981

[JMW83]  J. M. Jaffe, F. H. Moss, R. A. Weingarten, "SNA Routing: Past,
         Present, and Possible Future," IBM Systems Journal, pp.  417-435,
         1983.

[K88]    F.P. Kelly, "Routing in Circuit-Switched Networks: Optimization,
         Shadow Prices and Decentralization," Adv. Applied Prob.,
         pp. 112-144, March, 1988.

[L95]    W. C. Lee, "Topology Aggregation for Hierarchical Routing in
         ATM Networks," ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 1995.

[M86]    L. G. Mason, "On the Stability of Circuit-Switched Networks with
         Non-hierarchical Routing," Proc. 25th Conf. On Decision and
         Control, pp. 1345-1347, 1986.

[M91]    J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2," RFC 1247, July, 1991

[M94]    J. Moy, "MOSPF: Analysis and Experience," RFC 1585,  March, 1994.

[M98]    Q. Ma, "Quality-of-Service Routing in Integrated Services
         Networks," PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Carnegie
         Mellon University, 1998.

[MMR96]  D. Mitra, J. Morrison, and K. G. Ramakrishnan, "ATM Network
         Design and Optimization: A Multirate Loss Network Framework,"
         Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM `96, 1996.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 28

[MRR80]  J. M. McQuillan, I. Richer and E. C. Rosen, "The New Routing
         Algorithm for the ARPANET," IEEE Trans.  Communications, pp.
         711-719, May, 1980.

[MS91]   D. Mitra and J. B. Seery, "Comparative Evaluations of Randomized
         and Dynamic Routing Strategies for Circuit Switched Networks,"
         IEEE Trans. on Communications, pp. 102-116, January, 1991.

[MW77]   J. M. McQuillan and D. C. Walden, "The ARPANET Design Decisions,"
         Computer Networks, August, 1977.

[NC94]   Nair, R. and Clemmensen, D. : "Routing in Integrated Services
         Networks," Proc. 2nd International Conference on Telecom.
         Systems  Modeling and Analysis, March 1994

[PNNI96]  ATM Forum PNNI subworking group, "Private Network-Network
          Interface Spec.  v1.0 (PNNI 1.0)", afpnni-0055.00, March 1996.

[R76]    H. Rudin, "On Routing and "Delta Routing": A Taxonomy and
         Performance Comparison of Techniques for Packet-Switched
         Networks," IEEE Trans. Communications, pp. 43-59, January, 1996.

[R92]    Y. Rekhter, "IDRP Protocol Analysis: Storage Overhead," ACM Comp.
         Comm.  Review, April, 1992.

[R96]    B. Rajagopalan, "Efficient Link State Routing," Draft,
         available from braja@ccrl.nj.nec.com.

[RSR95]  B. Rajagopalan, R. Srikant and K. G. Ramakrishnan, "An
         Efficient ATM VC Routing Scheme," Draft, 1995
         (Available from braja@ccrl.nj.nec.com)

[SD95]   S. Sibal and A. Desimone, "Controlling Alternate Routing in
         General-Mesh Packet Flow Networks," Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM,
         1995.

[SPG97]  S. Shenker, C. Partridge, R. Guerin, "Specification of Guaranteed
         Quality of Service,", RFC 2212, September, 1997.

[T88]    D. M. Topkis, "A k-Shortest-Path Algorithm for Adaptive Routing
         in Communications Networks," IEEE Trans.  Communications, pp.
         855-859, July, 1988.

[W88]    B. M. Waxman, "Routing of Multipoint Connections," IEEE JSAC,
         pp. 1617-1622, December, 1988.

[W97]   J. Wroclawski, "Specification of the Controlled-Load Network
        Element Service," RFC 2211, September, 1997.

[WC96]   Z. Wang and J. Crowcroft, "QoS Routing for Supporting Resource
         Reservation," IEEE JSAC, September, 1996.

draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 29

[YS81]   T. P. Yum and M. Schwartz, "The Join-Based Queue Rule and its
         Application to Routing in Computer Communications Networks,"
         IEEE Trans. Communications, pp. 505-511, 1981.

[YS87]   T. G. Yum and M. Schwartz, "Comparison of Routing Procedures for
         Circuit-Switched Traffic in Nonhierarchical Networks," IEEE
         Trans. Communications, pp. 535-544, May, 1987.

[ZES97]  Zappala, D., Estrin, D., Shenker, S. "Alternate Path Routing
         and  Pinning for Interdomain Multicast Routing", USC  Computer
         Science Technical Report #97-655, USC, 1997.

[ZSSC97] Z. Zhang, C. Sanchez, B. Salkewicz, and E. Crawley, "QoS
         Extensions to OSPF," work in progress, September, 1997.



AUTHORS' ADDRESSES

   Bala Rajagopalan                          Raj Nair
   NEC USA, C&C Research Labs                Arrowpoint
   4 Independence Way                        235 Littleton Rd.
   Princeton, NJ 08540                       Westford, MA 01886
   U.S.A                                     U.S.A
   Ph: +1-609-951-2969                       Ph: +1-508-692-5875, x29
   Email: braja@ccrl.nj.nec.com              Email: nair@arrowpoint.com

   Hal Sandick                               Eric S. Crawley
   Bay Networks, Inc.                        Argon Networks, Inc.
   1009 Slater Rd., Suite 220                25 Porter Rd.
   Durham, NC 27703                          Littelton, MA 01460
   U.S.A                                     U.S.A
   Ph: +1-919-941-1739                       Ph: +1-508-486-0665
   Email: Hsandick@baynetworks.com           Email: esc@argon.com


        ***** This draft expires on October, 27, 1998  *****



draft-ietf-qosr-framework-05.txt                               Page 30


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