COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE BANDWIDTH ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES IN PACKET-SWITCHED MOBILE NETWORKS

Transcription

1 The 7th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 6) COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE BANDWIDTH ESTIMATION TECHNIQS IN PACKET-SWITCHED MOBILE NETWORKS Carlos Úbeda Castellanos, Dimas López Villa, Oumer M. Teyeb, Jan Elling, Jeroen Wigard Center for Teleinfrastrucktur, Cellular Systems Division Nokia Networks, Aalborg R&D Aalborg University, Niels Jernes Vej 2 Niels Jernes Vej 922 Aalborg East, Denmark 922 Aalborg East, Denmark {cubeda, dimas, oumer, je}@kom.aau.dk jeroen.wigard@nokia.com ABSTRACT The relative contribution of the transport network towards the per-user capacity in mobile telecommunication systems is becoming very important due to the ever increasing air-interface data rates. Thus, resource management procedures such as admission, load and handover control can make use of information regarding the available bandwidth in the transport network, as it could end up being the bottleneck rather than the air interface. This paper provides a comparative study of three well known available bandwidth estimation techniques, i.e., and, taking into account the statistical conditions of the available bandwidth and assessing the variability of their estimations. Simulation-based studies on a mobile transport network show that outperforms and, both in terms of accuracy and efficiency. I. INTRODUCTION Understanding the dynamic properties of the end-to-end (E2E) available bandwidth (ABw) is beneficial for the proper resource management in existing and emerging mobile communication systems. The increasing trend in the wireless interface data rates means that the requested data rate for a certain service might not be guaranteed, not only because of the air interface bandwidth limitation, but also due to a limitation in the transport network s ABw. Available bandwidth estimation (ABwE) is a very challenging task due to the heterogeneity of the current systems and the different traffic characteristics of different data flows. One possible way of ABwE is the deployment of specialized software on every router, which continuously reports the router s load. However, this is impractical, not only because it is costly to upgrade existing routers, but also because of the overload situation that might occur due to the huge amount of reporting traffic that ensues. Also, it is difficult to obtain an E2E measure since operators are not usually willing to share information regarding the loads in their routers and links. An alternative is to use E2E software that runs on the end hosts. This is usually called active probing (AP). However, this approach means an inference of the ABw, not a direct measuring, which entails several hindrances. The ABw is a time varying metric that exhibits variability depending on the observed time-scale [], and traffic prioritization could affect the methods performance. Despite all these disadvantages, AP is more practical than direct ABw measurements when there is no previous knowledge of the network, and the resources are limited. Fig. illustrates a usage scenario where AP can be used by employing agents in different network components within different systems. The source agents could be located on the BSC of GERAN in a GPRS system, on the RNC of UTRAN in UMTS and on the BS of E-UTRAN, whereas the destination agents could be at the service provider. The goal of this paper is to propose a method from existing ABwE techniques so that it can be applied to current and emerging mobile communication networks. The paper is organized as follows: II. presents the state of the art in ABwE. III. summarizes the previous work on comparison of ABwE techniques. IV. studies the viability of comparing the different methods under the same statistical conditions. V. shows the simulation results illustrating the performance of the different methods. Finally, VI. summarizes the main conclusions from this study and gives some pointers regarding future work. II. STATE OF THE ART IN AVAILABLE BANDWIDTH ESTIMATION ABwE techniques can be classified into Direct or Iterative Probing depending on whether they sample the ABw, or they iteratively check if the input rate is larger than the ABw. This section gives a brief description of the most common methods, and the reader is referred to [] for a more complete survey. A. Direct Probing Direct Probing (DP) techniques give a value of the ABw by estimating the cross-traffic rate. A perfect example of these techniques is Delphi [2], which assumes a complex multi-fractal model to characterize the cross-traffic. The main advantage is the real-time adaptation of this model to the current traffic. BTS BSC GERAN RNC Node B UTRAN SN BS E-UTRAN SGSN 3G SGSN IP backbone GGSN 3G GGSN Operator Service Network Internet Services Figure : Location of the agent in the transport network /6/$2. c 26 IEEE

2 The 7th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 6) Nevertheless, it requires previous knowledge of the capacity of the tight-link. B. Iterative Probing Iterative Probing (ItP) techniques are based on self-induced congestion, which consists of sending streams of packets whose input rate iteratively increases. The lowest input rate overloading the network is taken to be the ABw. ItP techniques are able to do the estimation without any knowledge about the tight-link capacity. Train of Packet Pairs () [3], implemented in a tool called DietTopp, sends streams of packet pairs, uniformly increasing their input rates each iteration. The rate is changed by modifying the input gap of each pair. The ABw is estimated as the maximum input rate not larger than the measured rate at the destination. Self-Loading Periodic Streams () [4], implemented in a tool called pathload, sends streams of equally spaced packets. Instead of changing the input rate linearly as, it performs a binary search. The rate varies by modifying the packet size. It takes into account the variability of the ABw by giving a range of variation, rather than a single value. It requires feedback from the destination to set the next input rate. [5] sends streams of exponentially spaced packets called chirps, so the instantaneous input rate changes. Only one iteration is needed to get an ABwE, since it probes the network with different input rates in each stream. III. RELATED WORK There has been a lot of research in this area over the last two decades. Many techniques have been proposed, and some performance and comparative studies have been done. In [6], performance comparison of and pathload in a singlehop network environment is given among others. In their experiments all the tools showed an accuracy within 3%. In [7], results of a series of ABwE experiments conducted on a high-speed testbed are presented. ABwE tools including, pathload and others based on packet pairs are evaluated. The results show that packet pair techniques perform worse than and pathload. Comparison of, pathload and in single and multi-hop real network is given in [5]. PathChirp was shown to perform better in terms of both accuracy and efficiency. In [8], the difference between ABw measurements in wired and wireless networks is discussed. DietTopp is compared in performance with pathload in a wired testbed. The tool is also evaluated in a wireless environment. It is shown that packet size is critical for ABw measurements. There is some controversy on the validity of the aforementioned comparisons between the different ABwE techniques. First, some of the previous work gives very low accuracy results that are used to propose a method as the best choice. Secondly, some conclusions are drawn from very few results under The tight-link is the link with the minimum ABw of a path, while the narrow-link is the one with the minimum capacity. very specific scenarios. Thirdly, most of the method parameters used in the simulations are not clearly stated. Fourthly, most of the studies compare different methods under different time-scales and using different number of samples of the ABw, which can vary the statistical properties from one estimation to another []. Finally, the variability of estimations has not been studied. This paper provides a comparative study of different ABwE techniques in terms of accuracy, efficiency and variability, attempting to normalize time-scale and number of samples of the ABw. IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF ITP TECHNIQS Techniques that require previous knowledge of the tight-link capacity are not studied in this paper, since it is not possible to determine such capacity without assuming that the tight-link and the narrow-link are the same, leading to errors []. Therefore, the study is focused on ItP techniques, specifically, and. First of all, it is necessary to define some structural concepts. As Fig. 2 points out, a set of K probing packets forms a stream. A stream is sent M times, which constitutes a fleet, and the results are averaged in order to improve the accuracy. A non-intrusiveness gap T NI is left between streams in order to reduce the average probing rate and to prevent a stream from interfering with the next one. This process is iterated I times. The time between the first and last packets of the whole procedure is defined as the probing time. ) 2) I) 2 M τ Τ NI τ τ 2 K Figure 2: Scheduling structure. The statistical conditions of the ABw process are fixed by the time-scale τ and the number of samples N []. The timescale is the time a stream interacts with the cross-traffic in a certain moment, i.e. the stream duration (see Fig. 2). Every two consecutive packets (and every packet pair in ) of a stream, an input rate is set. A sample of the ABw is obtained as a result of checking whether such input rate is larger than the ABw or not. So, the number of samples is related to the number of packets per stream. A. Viability Study of Statistical Comparison An initial mathematical analysis of ItP techniques has been conducted to see if it is possible to set the parameters of the three suggested techniques in such a way that they are working under the same statistical conditions to measure a similar ABw range [R min, R max ]. Fig. 3 represents such study for R min = Mbps. In 3(a), the time-scale as a function of the number of samples is shown for the three methods, using their optimum packet sizes [4, 5, 9]. There is an extra plot of

3 The 7th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 6) for the minimum packet size to avoid link-layer effects (P = 2B) [4]. In 3(b), the maximum input rate 2 of SLOPS and is compared. τ (ms) R max (Mbps) N P=2B P=8B P=B Statistical Comparison N (a) (b) decision increases probing time. As a trade-off between the probing time and the network overload, T NI is fixed at least as large as the time-scale, which reduces the average probing rate by at least 5%. Specifically, T NI = 4ms. Table summarizes the main parameters for the simulations, while the rest of the method parameters are fixed according to the original proposals for and, and is configured for Internet traffic. Note that the number of iterations in cannot be initially determined ( ) and depends on the resolution, set at.25mbps. Parameter N I 25 P (Bytes) 5 [2-5] R(M bps) [.-9.] [.-] [.-7.9] Table : Configuration parameters. Figure 3: Statistical comparison. From Fig. 3(a), it can be seen that and can not be compared for a significant number of samples. is only comparable with, but only if a probing packet size that is very sensitive to cross-traffic is used [9]. Fig. 3(b) shows that and are not comparable since they measure very different ranges for the same time-scale and number of samples. From the results, it can be seen that it is not possible to study the performance of, and under the same statistical conditions to measure a certain ABw range, even modifying their recommended parameters. Therefore, it is necessary to choose between the time-scale or the number of samples as the common statistical parameter. The time-scale is directly related to probing time, the latter being a determining factor for the field of application of this study. In the following simulations, τ is fixed for all three methods, while N is chosen for each method to be as large as possible to measure a similar ABw range without modifying excessively their optimum parameters. B. Adjustment of Parameters In order not to modify τ and N during the probing time, the maximum measurable range in is fixed at R max = R min. Therefore, the desired ABw range is set at R [. ]Mbps. Considering that the variance of the ABw is considerably reduced for time-scales larger than ms [], τ is set at 4ms, which will also not lead to a long probing time. sets M at 2, and sends only one stream per fleet, whereas in, an optimum M value is not determined. In order to keep the same conditions during the simulations for the three methods, it has been decided to use M =, although this 2 is not shown since its R max does not depend on N and τ. V. SIMULATION RESULTS In order to study the performance of the suggested methods under different cross-traffic models in single and multi-hop paths, several simulations have been conducted 3. A. Simulation Scenario Fig. 4 represents the simulation network model, composed of a probing source and a probing destination, i.e. the ABwE agents, joined by an H-hop path. It is based on one-hop persistent cross-traffic routing (i.e. the packets from a given crosstraffic source only travel through one hop of the path.) so as to control the ABw in each hop. The methods are evaluated under different kinds of crosstraffic: Constant Bit Rate (CBR) (which is the fluid traffic model initially assumed by all three techniques), Packet Size Distribution CBR (PSD-CBR) (based on CBR, but making use of a random packet size distribution obtained from a study of Internet traffic characteristics []) 4, and Poisson traffic model. 3 All the simulation results presented in this paper are generated using NS-2. 4 PSD-CBR sends equally spaced packets and the average cross-traffic rate is obtained from the expected packet-size. Probing Source X-Traffic Sources XD XD2 XDH- XDH 2 3 H H+ XS XS2 XS3 XSH X-Traffic Destinations Figure 4: Network topology for the simulations. Probing Destination

4 The 7th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 6) Measurements of the ABw are taken in steps of.5mbps from Mbps to Mbps 5 for different cross-traffic packet sizes P x {4,, 2,..., 5} bytes, except in PSD-CBR. The capacity of the tight-link is set at Mbps, whereas the latency is fixed at ms. The joining links have a latency of ms and Gbps of capacity. In multi-hop simulations (H = 5), the same configuration as in single-hop is used, but the ABw of the non-tight-links is fixed at 9Mbps to make sure there is only one tight-link. Each estimation is repeated 25 times in order to study the variance of the methods. Considering that gives an interval of variation of the ABw, the center of such interval is used as the estimated value to compare with the other two methods. B. Results ) Packet Size Dependency Fig. 5 shows the cross-traffic packet size dependency under CBR traffic in a single-hop scenario. The figure is obtained averaging the relative errors calculated within the whole interval for each packet size. is strongly dependent on the packet size. Specifically, it performs the best until the cross-traffic packet size is larger than the probing packet size, 5 Bytes in this case. Such dependency is easily explained by the fact that it uses packet pairs, which are very sensitive to cross traffic [9]. This constraint can be mitigated increasing the probing packet size. However, this means, for example, increasing the time-scale not to reduce the number of samples, as Fig. 3 shows. Note that the packet size is not a key factor in and performance, keeping an average relative error around %. 2) Cross-traffic Pattern Dependency Fig. 6 compares, and under different kinds of cross-traffic. In Poisson and CBR traffic models it has been chosen P x = 5B because it is a representative average cross-traffic size []. is quite accurate for CBR traffic if P x P, as explained previously. However, does not work for PSD- CBR and Poisson models, which points out that it is sensitive not only to cross-traffic packet size distributions, but also to random inter-arrivals. PathChirp performs the best in single-hop scenario regardless of the kind of cross-traffic. This behavior could be due to 5 A higher range R [8 6]Mbps is also studied, but the results are not included since they are very similar to the low range results. Average relative error (%) CBR packet size dependency Cross traffic packet size (Bytes) Figure 5: CBR packet size dependency. Performance comparison under different cross traffic models.5 2 (a) (b) (c).5 2 Figure 6: Performance comparison in single-hop scenario under CBR (a), PSD-CBR (b) and Poisson (c) traffic. The x-axis represents the offered ABw, while the y-axis represents the estimated ABw. the fact that makes use of the excursions analysis, which takes into account the burstiness of traffic [5]. However, it works slightly worse in multi-hop (see Fig. 7), since it is more likely that the exponential spacing of the chirp is modified by the other hops of the path. As probes the network with each rate once per stream, the spacing variation is decisive. As Fig. 7 shows, is less sensitive to multi-hop paths as it repeatedly measures the same rate during the stream, which makes it more robust against variations of the stream structure. Both and tend to underestimate the ABw except for values very close to the lowest bound of the measurable range. 3) Study of Variance Fig. 8 shows the variance of the methods under PSD-CBR traffic for a single-hop scenario. experiences a great variability, which is most of the times comparable to the estimation. Due to the random nature of the packet size distribution used in PSD-CBR traffic, interacts with different packet sizes in each estimation. Therefore, the aforementioned packet size dependency is also the source of its variability. On

5 The 7th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 6) PSD CBR traffic model simulation Figure 7: Performance under PSD-CBR in multi-hop. the other hand, the variance of and is quite small in comparison, the latter showing a better behavior at the end of the interval. 4) Efficiency Table 2 summarizes the efficiency of the different methods based on their level of interference with the network load and their speed. PathChirp is the most efficient method since its load and probing time is the smallest. Nevertheless, is the less intrusive method due to its long probing time resulting in a low average rate. Parameter Load (KB) Probing time (s) Average rate (Mbps) Table 2: Efficiency parameters. VI. CONCLUSIONS The main contribution of this paper is a comparative study of ABwE techniques taking into account the statistical conditions of the ABw. Even though the performance of none of the investigated methods is found to be outstanding, excels as the best tool in terms of both accuracy and efficiency. It shows no packet size dependency and an acceptable behavior in multi-hop environments under different cross-traffic models. The performance of is not that bad compared with, but it needs quite a longer time to give an estimation. is found to be very sensitive to the cross-traffic packet size and is also very slow. We are modifying the algorithm employed by to improve its performance. The enhancements we are undergoing include using profiles other than the exponential structure described in [5], optimizing the different parameters of the method, and using iteratively one estimation as input for the next one. We would also like to evaluate in a network under traffic prioritization such as Differentiated Services (DiffServ), and identify the possibilities of using RTT values instead of one way delay measurements, which requires only a source agent, since the service provider might not have control over the E2E path. REFERENCES [] Manish Jain and Constantinos Dovrolis. Ten fallacies and pitfalls on end-to-end available bandwidth estimation. In Alfio Lombardo and James F. Kurose, editors, Internet Measurement Conference, pages ACM, 24. ISBN [2] Vinay J. Ribeiro, Mark Coates, Rudolf H. Riedi, Shriram Sarvotham, Brent Hendricks, and Richard Baraniuk. Multifractal cross-traffic estimation. In Proc. of ITC Specialist Seminar on IP Traffic Measurement, September 2. [3] Bob Melander, Mats Björkman, and Per Gunningberg. A new end-to-end probing and analysis method for estimating bandwidth bottlenecks. IEEE Global Internet Symposium, November 2. [4] Manish Jain and Constantinos Dovrolis. End-to-end available bandwidth: measurement methodology, dynamics, and relation with TCP throughput. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., (4): , 23. [5] Vinay J. Ribeiro, Rudolf H. Riedi, Richard G. Baraniuk, Jiri Navratil, and Les Cottrell. : Efficient available bandwidth estimation for network paths. In Passive and Active Measurement Workshop, April 23. [6] Diane Kiwior, James Kingston, and Aaron Spratt. Pathmon, a methodology for determining available bandwidth over an unknown network. IEEE Sarnoff Symposium, April 24. [7] Alok Shriram, Margaret Murray, Young Hyun, Nevil Brownlee, Andre Broido, Marina Fomenkov, and Kimberly C. Claffy. Comparison of public end-to-end bandwidth estimation tools on high-speed links. In Constantinos Dovrolis, editor, PAM, volume 343 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages Springer, 25. ISBN [8] Andreas Johnsson, Bob Melander, and Mats Björkman. Bandwidth measurement in wireless networks. In Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop, Porquerolles, France, June 25. [9] Attila Pasztor and Darryl Veitch. The packet size dependence of packet pair like methods. IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS), 22. σ 2 (Mbps) Study of variance under PSD CBR traffic [] Sean McCreary and Kimberly C. Claffy. Trends in wide area IP traffic patterns - a view from Ames Internet exchange. ITC Specialist Seminar, 2. [] CISCO White Papers. Performance measurements of advanced queuing techniques in the CISCO IOS, Figure 8: Study of variance under PSD-CBR traffic in singlehop.