[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
INTERNET-DRAFT                                        Werner Almesberger
                                                         Tiziana Ferrari
                                                     Jean-Yves Le Boudec
                                               ICA, EPFL-DI, Switzerland
                                                           November 1997


             Scalable Resource Reservation for the Internet
                     <draft-almesberger-srp-00.txt>


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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
   documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
   "work in progress."

   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
   (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East
   Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).


1. Abstract

   Current resource reservation architectures for multimedia networks
   don't scale well for a large number of flows. We propose a new
   architecture that aggregates flows on each link in the network.
   Therefore, the network has no knowledge of individual flows, and
   resource management functions traditionally implemented in the
   network (such as flow acceptance control) are delegated to hosts.


2. Introduction

   Many resource reservation architectures and protocols that have been
   proposed for integrated service networks borrow heavily from the
   architecture of the telephony network:

     - routers or switches between the communicating hosts are required
       to store per-flow state information
     - reservations, once granted, are stringent and conformance of
       traffic is carefully controlled (policing)
     - most of the difficult work (e.g. admission control) is entirely


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec          Expires 5/98          [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


       handled by the network

   The general intention is to provide a network service that is as
   deterministic as possible. While a highly deterministic service is
   certainly attractive, the complexity and lack of scalability of the
   aforementioned architectures and protocols makes their usefulness for
   many applications questionable. Particularly Internet telephony
   creates a need for very inexpensive means to obtain a dependable
   quality of service for a very large number of concurrent flows.

   This goal can be achieved by aggregating flows so that the
   reservation mechanism only needs to be aware of a comparably small
   number of (aggregated) flows. The architecture we propose in this
   paper goes even beyond concepts for aggregation on top of traditional
   reservation architectures (e.g. [1] for ATM) in that it makes
   aggregation the standard behaviour of the network and not a special
   case requiring additional protocol activity. It differs from
   approaches ensuring relative fairness (e.g. [2] and [3]) in that
   admission control is an integral part of it.

   In short, our reservation model works as follows. A source that
   wishes to make a reservation (for example for Internet telephony)
   starts by sending data packets marked with a REQUEST flag to the
   destination. These packets are forwarded normally by routers, who
   also take a flow admission decision on each of them. After enough
   REQUEST packets have been sent, the source learns from the
   destination its estimate of how much of the reservation has been
   accepted in the network. The source may then send data packets marked
   with a RESERVED flag at the accepted rate. Routers that have
   admitted, and thus forwarded, REQUEST packets have committed to have
   enough resources to accept subsequent RESERVED packets sent by the
   source at the accepted rate. The accepted rate is computed
   independently by sources and routers, using a "learn by example"
   procedure. The accepted rate is guaranteed as long as there is a
   minimum activity by the source. The reservation disappears by timeout
   after the source has stayed idle for a while. Figure 1 shows an
   idealized view of our model, and a more detailed example is given in
   section "Reservation example". The initial data packets sent by the
   source can be thought of as "sticky": once a router has accepted some
   of them at a given rate, it must continue to accept packets at the
   same rate until the source becomes idle.













Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec          Expires 5/98          [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


     Reservation
     (Bandwidth)
          ^
          |
          |Rsv    Rsv use and   Rsv
          |setup  refresh       timeout
          |<--->|<------------>|<-->|
          |                                /  = REQUEST
          |     _______________.....
          |    /                    |      __ = RESERVED
          |   /                     |
          |  /                      |      .. = No traffic
          | /                       |
          |/                        |
          +-----------------------------> Time

   Figure 1: Idealized reservation procedure.


    A key feature of our proposal is that routers do not keep state
   information per flow; routers only remember their reservation
   commitments globally per output port. This is made possible by two
   features:

     - routers rely on end-systems not to exceed their accepted rates;
     - routers maintain reservations by learning, namely, by monitoring
       the actual reserved traffic.

   We discuss these two design directions in the rest of this section.
   Section "Architecture overview" describes the fundamental
   architecture. Section "Additional aspects" elaborates on that and
   also points out areas where more research is needed. The paper
   concludes with section "Conclusion".


2.1 The TCP case

      For best-effort traffic, the Internet has illustrated that network
      internals can be simple: besides routing, which has grown
      significant complexity, there are no "intelligent" services inside
      the network. Responsibility for congestion control is given
      entirely to the end systems (e.g. TCP), which are in turn expected
      to have some degree of complexity of their own. Also, instead of
      providing stringent isolation among users, the Internet relies on
      guided cooperation.

      Applying this approach to resource reservation means to let end
      systems perform flow acceptance control and to trust them not to
      exceed the agreed upon reservations. In order to protect the
      network from errors in application programs, the reservation
      protocol handling needs to be implemented in the networking kernel
      of the operating system.


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec          Expires 5/98          [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


      If needed, policing functions can be implemented per flow at some
      network access points; we believe that such policing is not needed
      at inter-carrier exchanges, or in general anywhere beyond Internet
      access points.

      Because flow acceptance control is inherently flow-specific,
      delegating it to end systems is a requirement for enabling routers
      to efficiently aggregate arbitrary flows.

      The proposed architecture slightly extends the traditional
      Internet design by introducing the concept of packet types to
      distinguish reserved traffic from best-effort traffic. This also
      allows routers to give more precise admission control indications
      than just a simple forward-or-discard decision.


2.2 Adaptive applications

      The desire to run multimedia applications over the current
      best-effort Internet with all its imperfections has motivated the
      development of increasingly sophisticated adaptive applications
      [4,5]. Adaptive applications tolerate variations in packet loss
      rates, in bandwidth, and in delay.

      Of course, even adaptive applications have certain minimum
      requirements. This is typically a minimum bandwidth, below which
      no useful operation is possible. If additional bandwidth is
      available, it is used to improve the service (e.g. better audio
      quality).

      The proposed architecture aims mainly to ensure that adaptive
      applications can obtain their minimum bandwidth. The service goals
      are similar to the ones of the INTSERV controlled-load service
      [6]: Availability of enough bandwidth is guaranteed but all other
      parameters (such as delay, loss rate, etc.) remain unspecified,
      although an application can assume that they are in a "reasonable"
      range.

      The presence of adaptive applications also implies that there is
      usually enough best-effort traffic in the network that only a
      small fraction of the total bandwidth will be used for reserved
      traffic and that resource shortage for reserved traffic will be an
      infrequent situation.


2.3 Learning by example

      New reservations are set up by sending data packets with a REQUEST
      flag. When a router accepts such requests, it predicts the arrival
      of future packets and changes its reservation state accordingly.

      Because the reservation information is sent directly with the


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec          Expires 5/98          [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


      data, the reservation and the actual traffic are automatically
      synchronized.

      Central to our proposal is the concept of an estimation module
      used by sources, routers, and destinations. Assuming that sources
      emit traffic in regular periodic patterns, a simple implementation
      could just count the number of requests during a time interval and
      use that to predict the increase of total reserved bandwidth. Note
      that the period of a source must be reasonably short compared to
      the observation interval for such measurements to be meaningful.

      The same principle is also used to detect decreases in the use of
      reserved bandwidth: Routers monitor the amount of reserved traffic
      and adjust reservations automatically if sources reduce their
      bandwidth or stop sending.* We describe this simple implementation
      in sections "Reservation dynamics" and "Reservation example".

        *  A discussion of measurement-based admission control for
          similar purposes can be found in [7].


3. Architecture overview

   The proposed architecture uses two protocols to manage reservations:
   a reservation protocol to establish and maintain them, and a feedback
   protocol to inform the sender about the reservation status.




                        Data and reservations
                                |
     +--------+      +--------+ |       +--------+      +--------+
     |        |      |        | |       |        |      |        |
     |        |----->| Router |---...-->| Router |----->|        |
     | Sender |      |        |         |        |      |Receiver|
     |        |      +--------+         +--------+      |        |
     |        |<------------------...-------------------|        |
     +--------+            |                            +--------+
                           |
                        Feedback

   Figure 2: Network structure overview.


    Figure 2 illustrates the operation of the two protocols:

     - Data packets with reservation information are sent from the
       sender to the receiver. The reservation information is processed
       by routers. They may modify the reservation information or they
       may also discard packets.
     - The receiver sends feedback information back to the sender.


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec          Expires 5/98          [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


       Routers only forward this information; they don't need to process
       it.

   Routers monitor the effectively present reserved traffic and adjust
   their reservations accordingly.


3.1 Reservation protocol

      The reservation protocol is used in the direction from the sender
      to the receiver. It is processed by the sender, the receiver, and
      the routers between them. In order to simplify processing of the
      reservation protocol, the reservation information is represented
      as a  packet type which is included in normal data packets.*

        *  The encoding is yet unspecified. One possible approach is to
          define a new IP option to carry the packet type.

      The reservation protocol uses three packet types:

        RESERVED  The reservation has already been established (and
          confirmed). The packet of type RESERVED uses that reservation.
        REQUEST  A reservation is needed for packets like the current
          one, but a reservation has not yet been confirmed (e.g.
          because no request was sent yet or because the feedback hasn't
          reached the sender yet).
        BEST EFFORT  No reservation is needed.

      Packet types are initially assigned by the sender, as shown in
      figure 3. A traffic source (i.e. the application) specifies for
      each packet if that packet needs a reservation. If no reservation
      is necessary, the packet is simply sent as BEST-EFFORT. If a
      reservation is needed, the protocol entity checks if an already
      established reservation covers the current packet. If yes, the
      packet is sent as RESERVED. Otherwise, an additional reservation
      is requested by sending the packet with the REQUEST flag.




        Application          |    Protocol stack
                             |
                             |
                             |     +-------------+ Yes
        Needs reservation -------->| Reservation |--------> RESERVED
                             |     |established ?|--------> REQUEST
                             |     +-------------+ No
        Doesn't need         |
        reservation --------------------------------------> BEST-EFFORT
                             |

      Figure 3: Initial packet type assignment by sender.


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec          Expires 5/98          [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


       Each router performs the following processing (see also figure
      4):

        - If a REQUEST can be accepted, the reservation is made and the
          packet is forwarded unchanged. Otherwise, its type is set to
          BEST-EFFORT and best-effort processing is performed.
        - If a RESERVED packet is received, the router verifies that a
          suitable reservation exists. This is normally the case and the
          packet is forwarded unchanged and with priority over
          best-effort traffic. If no reservation exists, either a
          protocol error or a route change has occurred (see section
          "Route changes"). In order to stabilize the reservation, the
          packet type is changed to REQUEST and request processing is
          performed.*

      Furthermore, BEST-EFFORT packets may be discarded during
      congestion.




        *  Considering that RESERVED packets will "magically" become
          requests if necessary, one may be tempted at this point to
          avoid the use of a REQUEST packet type entirely. At least in
          the given framework, this does not work. Requests are needed
          to isolate already established reservations from increases or
          new reservations: if packets from "old" and "new" reservations
          were both of type RESERVED, a router experiencing resource
          shortage had no way of knowing which ones to degrade or even
          to discard and it would consequently also penalize the "old"
          reservations.

                            +-------------+ Yes
        RESERVED ---------->| Reservation |---------> RESERVED
                            |established ?|
                            +-------------+
                                   | No
                                   v
                            +-------------+ Yes
        REQUEST ----------->| Reservation |---------> REQUEST
                            | possible ?  |
                            +-------------+
                                   | No
                                   v
                            +-------------+ Yes
        BEST-EFFORT ------->|  Resources  |---------> BEST-EFFORT
                            | available ? |
                            +-------------+
                                   | No
                                   X

      Figure 4: Packet type processing by routers.


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec          Expires 5/98          [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


       Note that the reservation protocol may "tunnel" through routers
      that don't implement reservations. This allows the use of
      unmodified equipment in parts of the network which are dimensioned
      such that congestion is not a problem.

      The receiver does no packet-type specific processing. Instead, it
      counts incoming packets and sends feedback to the sources.


3.2 Feedback protocol

      The feedback protocol is used to convey information on the success
      of reservations and on the network status from the receiver to the
      sender. Unlike the reservation protocol, the feedback protocol
      does not need to be interpreted by routers, because they can
      determine the reservation status from the sender's choice of
      packet types.

      Feedback information is collected by the receiver and it is
      periodically sent to the sender. The feedback consists of the
      receiver's estimate of the current reservation. The receiver
      computes this estimate by executing an algorithm like the one
      routers use to estimate the actual resource use. Additional
      information can be included in feedback messages to improve
      stability and to provide additional information on network
      performance, e.g. the loss rate along the path or the round-trip
      time.

      The reservation estimated by the receiver is an upper bound for
      the rate at which the sender may send requests and is used by the
      function that decides if packets are sent as RESERVED or as
      REQUEST.

      Receivers collect feedback information independently for each
      sender and senders maintain the reservation state independently
      for each receiver. Note that, if more than one flow to the same
      destination exists, attribution of reservations is a local
      decision at the source.

      The feedback mechanism can be implemented on top of a protocol
      like RTCP [8].


3.3 Reservation dynamics

      Reservations are set up for the traffic profile reflected by the
      requests sent by the source. A router can for instance count the
      number of requests it receives (and accepts) during a certain
      observation interval and use this as an estimate for the bandwidth
      that will be used in future intervals of the same duration.

      In addition to requests for new reservations, the use of existing


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec          Expires 5/98          [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


      reservations needs to be measured too. This way, reservations of
      sources that stop sending or that decrease their sending rate can
      automatically be removed. The use of reservations can be simply
      measured by counting the number of RESERVED packets that are
      received in a certain interval.

      With such measurements for time t, the amount of resources to
      reserve at time t+1 can be predicted as follows:

      reserve(t+1) = requests(t)+rsv_seen(t)

      with requests(t) being the sum of the resources requested and
      rsv_seen(t) being the resources used by reserved traffic, both
      measured during the observation interval starting at time t.

      To compensate for deviations caused by delay variations, spurious
      packet loss (e.g. in a best-effort part of the network), etc.,
      reservations can be "held" for more than one observation interval.
      This can be accomplished by remembering the observed traffic over
      several intervals and using the maximum of these values. With a
      hold time of h observation intervals, the reservation is computed
      as follows:

      reserve(t+1) = max(requests(t-h+1)+
                     rsv_seen(t-h+1),...,
                     requests_t+rsv_seen_t)

      The definition and evaluation of the algorithms for reservation
      calculation in hosts and routers is still ongoing work. The
      formulas above should serve only as examples.

      [ Figure 5: Algorithms in the senders, routers, and receivers. ]

      We call this algorithm an  estimator, since it attempts to
      estimate, based on past traffic, the resources that will need to
      be reserved in the future. Figure 5 shows how the estimator
      algorithm is used in all network elements:

        - Senders use the estimator for an optimistic prediction of the
          reservation the network will perform for the traffic they
          emit. This, in conjunction with feedback received from the
          receiver, is used to decide whether to send REQUEST or
          RESERVED packets.
        - Routers use the estimator for packet-wise admission control
          and also to detect anomalies (see section "Route changes").
        - In receivers, the estimator is fed with the received traffic
          and it generates a (conservative) estimate of the reservation
          at the last router. This is sent as feedback to the source.

      A source always uses the minimum of the (optimistic) estimation of
      the reservation at the next router and the (conservative)
      feedback.


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec          Expires 5/98          [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


      As described in section "Reservation protocol", a sender keeps on
      sending requests until successful reservation setup is indicated
      with a feedback packet. This means that the sender sends more
      requests than needed if the round-trip-time is greater than the
      observation interval. Routers can detect this by the lack of
      RESERVED packets and they consequently refrain from increasing the
      reservation. The feedback that is returned to the sender may also
      show an increased number of requests.* The sender must not
      interpret those requests as a direct increase of the reservation,
      because the routers didn't either. Instead, the sender uses the
      same algorithm as the routers to correct the feedback information
      accordingly.

        *  Some of them can, however, also be refused in the network and
          either become best-effort or even get discarded.


3.4 Resource reservation in a router

      This section gives an example of how resource reservation can be
      handled in a simple router where only output buffer space is
      controlled. Depending on its architecture, a real router may have
      to take the status and utilization of many other components into
      account.

      Figure 6 illustrates the packet processing in the example router:
      After passing the router fabric, the reservation information in
      each packet is examined and acted upon (see section "Reservation
      protocol"). Packets of type REQUEST or RESERVED are put into the
      queue for reserved traffic. All other packets are put into the
      best-effort queue or they are discarded. The queues are emptied by
      a scheduler which gives priority to the reserved traffic queue.

      [ Figure 6: Example router. ]

      Placing the reservation mechanisms directly before the output
      queues naturally leads to aggregation: since the critical resource
      at this point is queue space, one can for instance express
      reservations as allocations of such space within a given interval.
      The sum of the allocations then corresponds to the aggregate
      bandwidth, which is reserved on that port.

      [ Figure 7: Reservation control in router. ]

      Detection of malfunction can be improved without impacting
      scalability by calculating reservations not only for each output
      port, but for each input and output port pair (which is called an
      "intersection" in figure 7).


3.5 Reservation example



Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec         Expires 5/98          [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


      In this section, we illustrate the operation of the reservation
      mechanism in a very simple example. The network we use is shown in
      figure 8: the sender sends over a delay-less link to the router,
      which performs the reservation and forwards the traffic over a
      link with a delay of two time units to the receiver. The receiver
      periodically returns feedback to the sender.

      [ Figure 8: Example network configuration. ]

      The bandwidth reservation in the router and the reservation that
      has been acknowledged in a feedback message from the receiver are
      measured. In figure 9, they are shown with a thin continuous line
      and a thick dashed line, respectively. The packets emitted by the
      source are indicated by arrows on the reservation line. A full
      arrow head corresponds to REQUEST packets, an empty arrow head
      corresponds to RESERVED packets. For simplicity, the sender and
      the router use exactly the same observation interval in this
      example, and the feedback rate is constant.

      [ Figure 9: Protocol operation example. ]

      The source sends one packet per time unit. First, the source can
      only send requests and the router reserves some resources for each
      of them. At point (1), the router discovers that it has
      established a reservation for six packets in four time units, but
      that the source has only sent four packets. Therefore, it corrects
      its estimate and proceeds. The first feedback message reaches the
      sender at point (2). It indicates a reservation level of five
      packets in four time units (i.e. the estimate at the receiver at
      the time when the feedback was sent), so the sender can now send
      RESERVED packets instead of REQUESTs. At point (3), the next
      observation interval ends at the router and the estimate is
      corrected once more. Finally, the second feedback arrives at point
      (4), indicating the final rate of four packets in four time units.
      The reservation does no change after that.


4. Additional aspects

   This section describes further details of the proposed reservation
   architecture and discusses areas requiring further research.


4.1 Starvation

      Reservation establishment is incremental. It is therefore possible
      for a sender to obtain only a fraction of the required resources
      if a shortage occurs before all the requests have been accepted.
      This can lead to starvation if several senders (unsuccessfully)
      compete for same resource for an extended period of time.

      A sender can react to this situation in the following ways:


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec         Expires 5/98          [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


        - give up and report reservation failure to the application
        - try to proceed with the partial reservation (e.g. if the
          shortage occurred during an attempt to increase an older
          reservation)
        - back off and try again later

      In the latter case, the sender has to wait for the hold time plus
      a random delay before sending new requests. The random delay
      should be exponentially increased on repeated reservation failures
      to the same destination.


4.2 Generation of inelastic best-effort traffic

      Degrading REQUEST packets to BEST-EFFORT during resource shortage
      is desirable, because it allows the communicating hosts to easily
      distinguish a mere reservation failure from a total communication
      breakdown.

      Unfortunately, blindly converting all REQUEST packets to
      BEST-EFFORT may have disastrous effects on other best-effort
      traffic: since a sender emits requests at the full rate of the
      desired reservation, the resulting inelastic best-effort traffic
      would be grossly unfair with respect to protocols like TCP, which
      perform end-to-end congestion control (see also [9]).

      If the network implements a packet type for inelastic best-effort
      traffic* or generally a lower priority type than normal
      best-effort traffic, that type should be used when degrading
      REQUEST packets. Otherwise, a more aggressive discard policy has
      to be used for those packets. This could for instance be modulated
      by measuring congestion-controlled traffic (e.g. TCP) flowing to
      the same destination.

        *  Such a type would for instance have service characteristics
          like a low delay but a higher loss probability.


4.3 Route changes

      Like most other reservation architectures, the proposed one may
      fail to provide the promised service if there is a route change.
      Architectural means to reduce the number of route changes to the
      absolutely necessary minimum (e.g. "route pinning" [10]) are
      outside the scope of this paper.

      Once a route change occurs, e.g. due to a link failure, it
      typically has the following effects: The traffic is redirected to
      a path on which no prior reservation exists ( b, c). In order to
      limit the impact of this, the first router that detects the change
      should change RESERVED packets to REQUEST. In figure 10, routers
      A and  B can orderly try to establish reservations on links  a and


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec         Expires 5/98          [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


      b (and on all downstream links) if router  A changes the type of
      redirected packets. Note that  A cannot distinguish older reserved
      traffic sharing the path via  a and  b from redirected traffic and
      that it may therefore degrade RESERVED packets of the former to
      requests.

      [ Figure 10: Route change example. ]

      A further anomaly can occur, if the original path and the
      redirected path merge again further downstream ( d): The original
      reservation and the new requests that were generated to repair the
      reservation can collide and yield an artificially high
      reservation. This is similar to the time-to-feedback problem
      discussed in section "Reservation dynamics" and the same
      mechanisms can be used to overcome it.


4.4 Discussion of the estimation module

      We have presented in section "Reservation dynamics" an estimation
      module based on counting the number of bytes in request and
      reservation packets per time interval. We discuss now some
      implications of this estimation module. The estimated bandwidth
      required for one output for the tth time interval is reserve(t).
      Call T the length of the time interval. If the estimation is
      correct, this means that an arrival curve for the aggregate flow
      is a(u) = (T + u ) reserve(t). If the aggregate flow is served at
      a line rate c, this implies that the maximum delay variation for
      this flow is T/(reserve(t)*c) [11]. With this estimation module,
      the value of T is thus linked to the delay imposed on reserved
      traffic. This is undesirable, because we may want to choose a
      large value for T in order to smooth out jitter, without
      increasing the delay.

      It is possible to modify the estimation module as follows in order
      to remove this dependency. In section "Reservation dynamics",
      define requests(t) as the phdeterministic effective bandwidth for
      a delay bound D [11] of the flow of requests over the tth time
      interval, and rsv_seen(t) the deterministic effective bandwidth
      for the same delay bound D of the flow of reservations. The
      deterministic effective bandwidth is the amount of bandwidth that
      is required to serve an observed flow within a given delay bound.
      This modification makes the estimation module more complex, but it
      makes it possible to have an observation interval T much larger
      than the delay bound D. A more detailed analysis of the estimation
      module is the object of current research.


4.5 Multicast

      The reservation mechanism described can be slightly extended to a
      multicast scenario. The extensions concern the feedback and the


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec         Expires 5/98          [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


      reservation protocol at the source. They are needed to cope with
      several problems which are typical in a multicast environment:

        - the joining mechanism: how to establish reservations to a new
          group member without affecting the reservation already in
          place;
        - transparency: events like route instability, topology changes,
          joining and leaving of some group members and situations like
          heterogeneous connectivity should only affect their limited
          scope. They should be completely transparent to the remaining
          session members and also to the connections established by
          other applications.
        - feedback implosion: the feedback protocol which works well in
          a unicast scenario does not scale well in a multicast
          environment.

      Establishing reservations in a multicast tree The mechanism
      described here to build up reservations in a multicast context
      fits for multicast routing algorithms in which sources do not
      flood traffic periodically to the network. In this way
      reservations (REQUEST and RESERVED packets) can be restricted to
      the links belonging to the multicast tree.

      The source starts sending request messages to the multicast
      routers which explicitly joined the group as a reply to the source
      register message. Members of a session are divided into two sets:

        1. joining members, forming the REQUEST multicast group;
        2. "old" members, forming the RESERVED multicast group.

      This distinction is necessary in order to make the joining
      operation transparent to the hosts and to the branches already
      belonging to the session.* The purpose of this division is to
      forward REQUEST packets only on the path from the nearest
      multicast router belonging to the reserved group to the new
      member, as shown in figure 11.


















Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec         Expires 5/98          [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


        *  New members cannot join directly the reserved group because
          this would have the effect of injecting RESERVED packets into
          links on which the corresponding amount of resources was not
          allocated before. Since routers have no means to distinguish
          "legal" from "illegal" packets, non-conforming data would
          affect other reservations already in place. Vice versa, the
          sending of REQUEST packets would have the effect of increasing
          the reservation level on the trunks already belonging to the
          reserved tree.

                        [Source]      [...] and // = on RESERVED tree
                       //      \\     <...> and /  = on REQUEST tree
                      //        \\
               [Router]          [Router]
              //      \                 \
             //        \                 \
      [Member]         <Member>          <Router>
                                         /      \
                                        /        \
                                 <Member>        <Member>

      Figure 11: Request and reserved multicast group.


       The join request is issued hop-by-hop toward a multicast router
      already on the reserved tree. Routers already receiving reserved
      traffic start sending the multicast traffic to the member after
      receiving the join request. In addition to that, they also switch
      the RESERVED flag to REQUEST. Members of the request group can
      compare their reservation estimate to the target amount indicated
      by the source. If the reservation offered is acceptable, then the
      member can leave the request group and join the reserved group.*

        *  This mechanism requires that the interval between the leaving
          and the joining is small compared to the life time of the
          reservation just established.

      This mechanism can be implemented by associating two multicast
      addresses to the two distinct groups. The addresses can be
      different only in the least significant bit - for example it can
      be 0 for the request group and 1 for the reserved group. Then, the
      algorithm executed by the multicast router when a multicast packet
      is received, is the following:



      if ((pck_addr is multicast) and
              (pck_type == rsvd)) {
        forward pck to reserved group;
        if (router is in the request group) {
              newpck = copy(pck);
              newpck_type = req;


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec         Expires 5/98          [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


              forward newpck to request group;
        }
      }



      Transparency In a network with bottlenecks the algorithm should
      avoid that the link with worst connectivity (e.g. with the lowest
      bandwidth availability) limits the reservation offered to each
      member of the group. To cope with this heterogeneity multicast
      members could be grouped into separate sets and layered coding
      [12] could be used.

      Hosts which can apply for the same reservation level, are
      associated to different multicast groups. All the receivers are
      included in a common multicast tree for the distribution of the
      fundamental coding layer, then other coding layers can be added to
      it. The traffic distribution of each layer can be implemented
      through the reserved and request group described above and each
      member can join several groups at the same time depending on the
      quality of its connectivity.

      Feedback The problem of feedback implosion is solved by simply not
      sending any explicit feedback but by using group membership as an
      implicit indicator instead. The multicast source can fix an a
      priori value for the minimum amount of reservations required to
      forward the traffic of a given coding layer. After joining the
      request group the receiver does flow acceptance control. If the
      estimated reservation is acceptable compared to the target set by
      the source, then it can leave the REQUEST group and join the
      RESERVED, otherwise it leaves the REQUEST group and gives up. So,
      the absence of a reserved group of a session can mean two things:
      no members have joined the request group yet or no members can
      accept the reservation offered.

      Since the source does not receive any feedback, it can statically
      fix the reservation threshold of each multicast group. If that
      amount of resources can not be allocated, hosts will leave both
      groups, the multicast trees disappear and the (partial)
      reservations time out.


5. Conclusion

   We have proposed a new scalable resource reservation architecture for
   the Internet. Our architecture achieves scalability for a large
   number of concurrent flows by aggregating flows at each link. This
   aggregation is made possible by entrusting traffic control decisions
   to end systems - an idea borrowed from TCP. Reservations are
   controlled with estimation algorithms, which predict future resource
   usage based on previously observed traffic. Furthermore, protocol
   processing is simplified by attaching the reservation control


Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec         Expires 5/98          [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


   information directly to data packets.

   We did not present a conclusive specification but rather described
   the general concepts, and gave examples for basic implementations of
   core elements of the architecture. Further research is needed to
   resolve open issues needed for a comprehensive specification and to
   improve efficiency, robustness, and versatility of the algorithms and
   procedures outlined in this paper.


6. References

     [1]  Gauthier, Eric; Giordano, Silvia; Le Boudec, Jean-Yves.
       Reduce Connection Awareness,
       http://lrcwww.epfl.ch/scone/scone_paper2.ps, Technical Report
       95/145, DI-EPFL, September 1995.
     [2]  Floyd, Sally; Jacobson, Van.  Link-sharing and Resource
       Management Models for Packet Networks, IEEE/ACM Transactions on
       Networking, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 365-386, August 1995.
     [3]  Liebeherr, Joerg; Akyildiz, Ian F.; Sarkar, Debapriya.
       Bandwidth Regulation of Real-Time Traffic Classes in
       Internetworks, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Vol. 28, No.
       6, April 1996, pp. 855 - 872.
     [4]  Diot, Christophe; Huitema, Christian; Turletti, Thierry.
       Multimedia Applications should be Adaptive,
       ftp://www.inria.fr/rodeo/diot/nca-hpcs.ps.gz, HPCS'95 Workshop,
       August 1995.
     [5]  Bolot, Jean; Turletti, Thierry.  Adaptive Error Control For
       Packet Video in the Internet, Proceedings of IEEE ICIP '96, pp.
       232-239, September 1996.
     [6]  Wroclawski, John.  Specification of the Controlled-Load
       Network Element Service (work in progress), Internet Draft
       draft-ietf-intserv-ctrl-load-svc-05.txt, May 1997.
     [7]  Floyd, Sally.  Comments on Measurement-based Admissions
       Control for Controlled-Load Services,
       ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/admit.ps.Z, July 1996.
     [8]  RFC1889: Schulzrinne, Henning; Casner, Stephen L.; Frederick,
       Ron; Jacobson, Van.  RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
       Applications, IETF, January 1996.
     [9]  Floyd, Sally; Fall, Kevin.  Router Mechanisms to Support
       End-to-End Congestion Control,
       ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/collapse.ps, Technical report, LBL,
       February 1997.
     [10]  RFC1633; Braden, Bob; Clark, David; Shenker, Scott.
       Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview.,
       IETF, June 1994.
     [11]  Le Boudec, Jean-Yves.  Network calculus made easy,
       http://lrcwww.epfl.ch/PS_files/d4paper.ps, Technical Report
       96/218, EPFL-DI, submitted to IEEE TIT, December 1996.
     [12]  McCanne, Steven; Jacobson, Van; Vetterli, Martin.
       Receiver-driven Layered Multicast, ACM SIGCOMM '96, August 1996.



Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec         Expires 5/98          [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT        draft-almesberger-srp-01.txt         November 1997


7. Author's address

   Werner Almesberger
   Jean-Yves Le Boudec
   Institute for computer Communications and Applications
   Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL)
   CH-1015 Lausanne
   Switzerland
   email: almesber,leboudec@lrc.di.epfl.ch

   Tiziana Ferrari
   DEIS, University of Bologna
   viale Risorgimento, 2
   I-40136 Bologna
   Italy
   and
   Italian National Inst. for Nuclear Physics/CNAF
   viale Berti Pichat, 6/2
   I-40127 Bologna
   Italy
   email: ferrari@lrc.di.epfl.ch

































Almesberger, Ferrari & Le Boudec         Expires 5/98          [Page 18]