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

Versions: 00                                                            
INTERNET-DRAFT                                   Bala Rajagopalan
draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                 Bellcore
                                                 Raj Nair
                                                    Ascom Nexen
                                                 June, 11, 1996



     Quality of Sevice (QoS)-Based Routing in the Internet - Some Issues


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 learn the current status of any Internet Draft, please check the
   1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ds.internic.net, nic.nordu.net, ftp.nisc.sri.com or
   munnari.oz.au.

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   This Internet Draft expires December, 16, 1996.


Abstract

There are many reasons to consider QoS-based routing as a component of
the integrated services Internet. But several questions arise with
regard to its development: what are the requirements on QoS-based
routing in the Internet? What sort of a routing architecture is
practical? What are the technical and policy issues that arise in
realizing a QoS-based Internet routing architecture? This draft is an
attempt to generate some discussion on these topics. To this end we
present some potential requirements on path computation, efficiency,
robustness and scalability, and describe some issues in realizing a
QoS-based routing architecture. Our conclusions are that QoS-based
routing is a challenging problem, and that it may be best to address
the intradomain, interdomain and scalability aspects separately in
developing the routing architecture.


1.      INTRODUCTION

The internet is being used increasingly for transport of multimedia
information such as image, voice and video. With the increase in
sophistication of desktop computers, and the availability of networked
multimedia applications, the Internet is likely to see more of this
type of traffic. This type of usage, however, is ad-hoc in that the IP
network architecture has been designed for "best-effort" delivery,
without any guarantees on throughput or delay. It has been recoginzed
that to adequately support realtime traffic flows with bandwidth and
delay requirements, the following features should be present in the
Internet [1]:

-       new service classes beyond best-effort to provide certain guarantees
on throughput and delay to applications;

-       a mechanism that allows applications to signal to the network their
quality of service (QoS) requirements; and

-       traffic management mechanisms in hosts and routers

The IETF has been working on the first two issues: defining service
classes in addition to best-effort [1], and a resource reservation
protocol (RSVP) [2] that applications may use to reserve network
resources to get the level of service they desire. Traffic management
features are also being built by router vendors. An issue being
discussed now is whether a routing architecture that allows the dynamic
discovery of QoS-accommodating paths in the network for data flows, in
the presence of changes in network topology and loading, is required.
In our opinion, without QoS-based routing, the definition of new
service classes and signalling protocols may only be of limited use in
supporting real-time applications.

Our assumption is that it is not economical to overprovision network
resources in order to obviate the need for QoS mechanisms. Under these
circumstances, there is a justifiable need for QoS-based routing.
First, without it, protocols like RSVP may convey the QOS requirements
of a flow to routers, but there is no guarantee that an existing
acceptable path between the sender and the receiver(s) will be found
and utilized. An alternative, suggested often, is to let routers keep
track of multiple paths and attempt flow setup by trial and error along
these paths. This technique does not scale well with network diameter,
and the blocking probability and setup time may be high.

Second, economic network engineering depends on the use of an
efficient routing scheme. For instance, with a traditional IP routing
algorithm, a single fixed path is selected for all traffic between a
pair of nodes. To assure the desired QoS, this path must be engineered
to accommodate the peak traffic demand between the node pair. This
results in the inefficient use of resources, since there may be other
underutilized paths between the same node pair. On the other hand, a
QoS-based routing algorithm would allow the network capacity to be
engineered efficiently by virtue of its ability to take into account
the current network state in making routing decisions.

Finally, a network state-dependent routing scheme can compensate for
imprecise network engineering. Specifically, when the traffic load


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                        Page 2

exceeds the engineered limits due to exceptional circumstances (e.g.,
focussed overload after failures), a QoS-based routing scheme allows
more traffic to be routed and a more graceful performance degradation
as compared to a state-insensitive routing scheme [4]. Indeed, these
are the reasons for the development of state-dependent routing schemes
for long distance phone networks [5] and ATM networks [6]. QoS-based
routing must therefore be considered an essential component of the
overall scheme to provide QoS guarantees to applications in the
Internet.

Given the need for QoS-based routing, the following questions arise:
what are the requirements on QoS-based routing in the Internet? What
sort of a routing architecture is practical? What are the technical and
policy issues that arise in realizing a QoS-based Internet routing
architecture? This draft is an attempt to generate some discussion on
these topics. To this end, in the next section, we point out some
potential requirements. In Sections 3 and 4, we describe some issues
that arise in developing a QoS-based routing architecture satisfing
these requirements. Related work is outlined in Section 5, and summary
and conclusions are presented in Section 6.


2.      SOME REQUIREMENTS ON QOS-BASED IP ROUTING

The foremost issue in developing a QoS-based IP routing architecture
is the definition of the requirements it must satisfy. Given the
organization of the internet, the nature of the traffic, the service
classes being considered, and the requirements of the users, there
could be many requirements on QoS-based routing. To make a start, we
may consider the following preliminary requirements:

Metrics and Paths
-----------------

-       Support for multiple path metrics (bandwidth, delay, etc.). The
definition of the metrics would be based on the service classes defined
by the intserv WG.

-       The ability to dynamically determine paths satisfying multiple
constraints (e.g., bandwidth and delay).

-       QoS support for multiple types of flows, i.e., unicast and
many-to-many multicast.

Robustness
----------

-       The ability to detect and respond to dynamically changing QoS
capabilities of a link.

-       The ability to continue routing in the presence of multiple,
simultaneous failures in the network.



draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                        Page 3

Efficiency
----------

-       The ability to route short-lived data flows with minimal overhead.

-       The ability to utilize network resources efficiently, through load
spreading, global admission control techniques and the like.

-       Minimization of routing overheads.

-       Support for resource control, i.e., the ability to limit resource
consumption by different classes of traffic.

Scalability and Priority
------------------------

-       The ability to scale to large numbers of nodes and links, and to a
large network diameter.

-       Support for prioritizing flows, and to permit high priority flows to
be established with precedence over lower priority flows.

Interdomain and Policy
----------------------

An area that requires some thought is the requirements for
interdomain routing. Specifically, the nature of the information that
is exchaged at the border of two domains must be determined. If the
information exchange is compact, the interdomain routing scheme can be
relatively simple (Section 3.8). In any case, the ability to introduce
policy constraints on routing information flow at the boundary between
two organizations is required.

Other
-----

Other requirements, such as mobility support, may be defined.

These are complex requirements, and a number of challenging problems
must be solved to satisfy them. The resulting routing scheme can be
expected to be more sophisticated than the existing internet routing
schemes. It is, however, encouraging that recent Internet routing work,
such as Nimrod and Source Demand Routing, has addressed scalability,
on-demand route computation and source routing issues. The ATM Forum
PNNI work illustrates an effort to develop a scalable, QoS-based
routing architecture. To what extent the ideas developed under these
efforts may be incorported in the QoS-based routing architecture for
the Internet is a subject that requires much discussion. This draft
does not address that question. Instead, our objective is to describe
some of the problems that arise in realizing a QoS-based Internet
routing architecture.

To this end, we first consider intradomain routing, without
scalability requirements. As a reference routing architecture for this
case, link state routing with distributed intelligence seems to be a
reasonable choice. To build QoS-based routing features in this
architecture, algorithm design issues, for instance, computing "low
cost" multicast distribution trees for flows, or efficient broadcast


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                Page 4

schemes for propagating QoS information must be addressed. Other
problems that involve policy and scalability issues in the global,
multiply administered internet may be addressed separately, once the
requirements are determined. This approach allows us to focus on two
distinct classes of problems that arise in realizing the QoS-based
routing architecture for the Internet.

Following the requirements above, the intradomain link state
architecture should allow a router determine a feasible path for a
given unicast flow on demand. For multicast flows with dynamic receiver
sets, QoS-based routing should allow the dynamic, incremental
computation of QoS-accommodating multicast trees. Under link state
routing, each router in an autonomous system (AS) monitors the QoS
available on each directly attached link, and its own resource
availability. This information is broadcast to other routers in the
AS on a periodic and/or event-driven basis. Based on the view of the
network state, a router may determine the path for a given flow. Source
routing, along with local and global admission control techniques may
be used to accept or reject a flow along the path. Also, routers may
recognize the priorities of flows (perhaps signalled via RSVP) and
implement a mechanism to ensure a high rate of success for guaranteeing
QoS for high priority flows.

The issues that arise in intradomain QoS-based routing may be broadly
classified as follows:

-       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.

-       How do routers propagate the QoS knowledge to remote routers to aid
in path selection?

-       How are QoS-accommodating paths computed by routers for unicast
flows?

-       How are QoS-accommodating paths computed for multicast flows?

-       What is the mechanism for prioritizing flows?

-       What is the mechanism for resource control?

-       What are the performance impacts of dealing with many short-lived
flows (e.g., web page accesses)?

-       How does the RSVP model fit with the QoS-based routing architecture?

Each of these points is discussed in the next section. Scalability and
interdomain routing issues are described briefly in Section 4.


3.      INTRADOMAIN ROUTING ISSUES

3.1     QoS Determination and Resource Reservation

The integrated services working group of the IETF has concentrated on
local resource management within routers. In particular, the notion of
"admission control" has been introduced that allows a router to make a


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                     Page 5


decision as to whether a given flow may be accepted or rejected based
on local resource availability. The admission control process
requires knowledge of the QoS available on all links attached to a
router. It is still an open issue, however, as to how the QoS values
are computed for various link types such as multiple access links. The
resolution of this issue is in the domain of the ISSLL working group.

The intricacies of this problem may be appreciated when the case of a
router connected to a large non-broadcast multiple access network, such
as ATM, is considered. In this case, a router may have multiple next
hop choices, with corresponding paths across the ATM network, each with
possibly different QoS availability. The issues are, how does a router
determine what the routing options are across an ATM network, what the
QoS availability over each available route is, and what QoS value to
advertise for the ATM link when QoS-based routing is implemented in the
wider internet. To put this problem in perspective, the currently
defined standards for IP routing over ATM, such as NHRP, allow the
selection of a single exit point in the ATM network for an IP datagram.
With QoS requirements on IP flows, there may not be an ATM path which
accommodates the given QoS from the entry router to the exit router
returned by NHRP. An approach like IPNNI [7] would be helpful here,
although with some complexity. A related problem is the reservation
of resources over a broadcast network, say an ethernet. Because access
to the network is distributed, some coordination is required among
routers in reserving resources.

3.2     Knowledge Propagation

The link state architecture requires routers to broadcast the local
resource status (such as available link capacity, delay measurements,
etc.) and the local topology information to all other routers in the
AS. The broadcast of status information from one router to others might
be an expensive process in terms of communication and processing
overheads. So far, intradomain routing has been based on fixed link
metrics (i.e., minimum hop, or shortest-path based on static metrics).
In this environment, efficiency of information propagation has not been
an issue. Thus, routing algorithms such as OSPF have used flooding with
periodic refreshing as a means to propagate updates. Given that
linkstate routing is essential for efficient QoS-based routing,
flooding-type mechanisms are not suitable for information broadcasting.
Alternative techniques to reduce broadcast overheads, such as
tree-based forwarding, have been proposed [8]. These have to be
implemented. In addition, link status information such as utilization
can be volatile, i.e., their values can change significantly in a short
period of time with the admittance of real-time flows. How should such
information be quantized in order to reduce the update generation rate
is an issue to be resolved. Clearly, the less accurate the information,
the less likely that a feasible path will be found by a source router.
On the other hand, the overheads of keeping very accurate information
at each router may be high. Aggregation of status information reduces
the frequency of update generation, but how it affects routing
algorithm performance has to be determined.

3.3     Unicast Path Computation Algorithms

Given the availability of network state information at each router,
how should paths be computed for unicast flows? The computation of a
"feasible" path for a given flow is not difficult: a router just


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                    Page 6

eliminates all infeasible links and nodes, i.e., those that cannot
support the requested QoS, from its local representation of the network
topology and finds an end-to-end path in the remaining topology. But as
studies in circuit-switched networks have shown that even in limited
topologies this sort of "feasible-path routing" is unacceptable, i.e.,
it results in the admission of lesser number of flows into the network
than what is possible otherwise. Moreover, as noted above, aggregation
of link status information is usually lossy. This aggrevates the
problem of flow blocking.

Feasible-path routing corresponds to the notion of local admission
control defined by the IETF's integrated services group; a flow is
routed over a path as long as it passes the admission control criterion
of each router along the path. While this type of admission control
is required to control the subscription of resources at a router, it
does not take into account any global view of resource consumption by
individual flows. Efficiency in routing is achieved only when an
additional layer of admission control is implemented. This higher level
admission control procedure would consider the resource requirement
of each flow in relation to the available resources along a path in
order to determine whether it is profitable overall to admit the flow
[9]. Thus, an individual flow may be rejected even if there are
feasible paths to route it, if it is found that admitting the flow
would result in an overall decline in the number of flows carried by
the network. The formulation of this higher level admission control,
with fairness to all flows desiring entry to the network, is an area
that requires work.

Path computation with multiple QoS constraints on a flow is a
difficult problem. Indeed, for some combinations of QoS constraints,
the problem is NP-complete. However, algorithms have been proposed for
computing paths with combined bandwidth and delay constraints [10], and
such algorithms can be incorporated in the routing scheme.

3.4     Flow Prioritization

Given that critical flows must be accorded higher priority than other
types of flows, a mechanism must be implemented in the network to
recognize flow priorities. It is assumed that RSVP can be used to
signal the priority of a flow. There are then 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 signalled 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.

The policy and verification aspects are outside the scope of this
draft. The routing mechanism for implementing flow priorities may be
based on preemption combined with dynamic rerouting of lower priority
flows. For example, assuming a small, fixed number of priority levels
(e.g., 16), each router may broadcast the resources locally allocated
to flows of each priority level. A router, when computing a path,
first attempts to find a path that has the necessary unallocated


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                      Page 7

resources to support the QoS requirements of the flow. If such a path
cannot be found, the router attempts to finds a path where adequate
resources may be freed by displacing lower priority flows. In the end,
a high priority flow may be routed by preempting resources allocated to
lower priority flows. Routers may attempt to dynamically reroute
preempted flows using the same procedure.

Routing procedures for flow prioritization may thus be complex.
Identification and evaluation of different procedures are areas that
require investigation.

3.5     Resource Control

Given the existence of multiple service classes, it is necessary to
engineer a network to carry the forecasted traffic demands of each
class. To do this, a network administrator may logically partition
router and link resources among various service classes. Strict
partitioning, however, may result in inefficient use of network
resources, since there may be periods of time during which there may be
excessive traffic load under one class and light load under another. It
is thus desirable to allow unused resources to be allotted traffic that
needs them. This type of 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. This is the job of the routing scheme. This may be
done via preemption, in a manner not contradictory to the priority
assignment of active traffic flows. Non-preemptive dynamic resource
sharing techniques are possible, as illustrated by the Real Time
Network Routing architecture of the AT&T phone network [5]. The
design of an appropriate resource sharing scheme, and its incorporation
into the QoS-based routing scheme is a challenging issue. In
particular, the overheads incurred by the routing scheme in the
implementation of logical resource partitioning and dynamic sharing is
an issue that must be studied carefully.

3.6     Short-Lived Flows

The QoS-based routing model 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, this problem arises in virtual circuit networks
such as ATM, where many short-lived SVCs result in increased call
set-up overheads.Even without QoS-based routing, RSVP flow
establishment overheads are incurred for each session. An area worth
investigation is the minimization of routing-related overheads during
flow establishment. One approach that is useful is cacheing recently
computed routes, so that new sessions to the same destination do not
cause recomputation of paths. The issue of efficient flow set-up in
general needs investigation.

3.7     QoS-Based Routing for Multicast Flows

Computing QoS accommodating paths for multicast flows is a tricky
problem, especially if the notion of higher level admission control
(Section 3.3) is included. The dynamism in the receiver set allowed by
IP multicast also adds to the problem. In any case, routers in an AS
must keep track of the id of subnets where group members are present,
along with the QoS requested by them, in order to compute the


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                       Page 8

appropriate multicast trees. This corresponds to an enhanced MOSPF-type
algorithm [20]. As receivers leave or join a multicast group, existing
trees from different sources may have to be incrementally modified.
Many such heuristic incremental algorithms are presently known
[23-25]. Computing optimal shared trees based on the shared reservation
style [2] may require new algorithms. Finally, scalability is an issue
with algorithms that require knowledge of receiver sets.

3.8     RSVP and QoS-Based Routing

The QoS-based routing model has some implications on signalling.
Specifically, under this routing model, the QoS desired for a flow must
be specified before a path can be computed. In contrast, under RSVP, a
path must exist before a reservation can be made. RSVP utilizes PATH
messages to notify the receivers of a session and the traffic
characteristics at the sender, and to establish the flow's path state
in the routers. With QoS-based routing, the latter function is not
useful since the flow path is computed based only on the receivers'
reservation. Using the current RSVP model with QoS-based routing, a
unicast flow establishment would require a PATH message sent from the
source to the receiver along a best effort path, say, and a RESERVE
message sent over a QoS-accommodating flow computed by a router close
to the receiver.

With regard to multicast flows, the path for a multicast flow under
the current RSVP specifications is the IP multicast tree of the source.
To receive a flow, a host must first join the multicast group, and
hence the multicast tree for a given source. To request a certain QoS
for the flow, each receiver must send a RESERVE message towards the
root of the tree, reserving link and router resources enroute. The
set of receivers of a multicast flow is dynamic, and transparent to
the source of the flow. The multicast routing protocol dynamically
maintains a tree per source, in which the leaves are the current set of
receivers. This protocol establishes the multicast tree independently
of the QoS requirements of flows subsequently routed over it. Thus,
there is no guarantee that a leaf would be successful in reserving
the resources to get the desired QoS.

One solution for QoS-based multicast routing is to separate RSVP PATH
message flow and actual data flow from a source. Thus, a basic
multicast routing protocol would provide a tree for delivering PATH
messages to any receiver joining the group. The reception of a RESERVE
message by a router would trigger an algorithm to (incrementally)
compute a new tree for the data flow, i.e., addition/deletion of
branches to the existing tree, as discussed in the previous section.


4.      SCALING AND INTERDOMAIN ROUTING

4.1     Scaling by Hierarchical Aggregation

A scalable intradomain routing architecture is needed to handle the
thousands of nodes that may exist within an AS. Scaling by hierarchical
aggregation is a common techique, as exemplified by the ATM Forum PNNI
routing scheme [12]. Hierarchical aggregation, however, introduces
problems with regard to the accuracy of the aggregated state
information [13]. Also, the aggregation of paths under multiple
constraints is difficult. One of the difficulties is the risk of


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                       Page 9

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 at the source. Much
study is needed to understand and characterize the performance impacts
of aggregating path metric information. Meanwhile, a way to compensate
for inaccuracies is to use crankback, i.e., dynamic search for
alternate paths as a flow is being routed. Crankback, however,
increases the time to set up a flow, and also results in overall poor
utilization of resources. Thus, crankback is the mechanism of last
resort, and the minimization of its use is a problem that requires
work.

4.2     Interdomain Routing

Many issues arise when multiple ASs, each implementing QoS-based
routing within their networks, interface. Efficient end-to-end
QoS-based routing across multiple ASs require some exchange of
information between them, but individual ASs may not wish to reveal
too much information. For instance, it may not be possible or
desirable for an AS to reveal internal topology information to others.
Also, even if there are no policy constraints on exporting information,
overall scalability of the internet routing architecture may not allow
this. Thus, the issue is what (minimal) information should be exchanged
between different autonomous systems to implement end-to-end QoS-based
routing?

It is desirable that information flow across ASs should be much more
abridged than what flows inside an AS. For example, fairly stable QoS
information applicable to the entire network may be advertised. This
means that an AS should engineer its network carefully to ensure that
it can meet the QoS advertised. Compact information flow may allow the
implementation of QoS-based routing through enhanced versions of
traditional interdomain protocols such as BGP.

The precise definition of an interdomain routing architecture, which
accommodates QoS and also aids in establishing routing policies is an
area that requires work. The scalability of any proposed architecture
must be evaluated, along with its efficiency in large configurations.
Finally, interdomain QoS-based multicast routing is a challenging
problem.


5.      PROGNOSIS AND RELATED WORK

QoS-based routing in the Internet is indeed a daunting problem. To
make some progress in this area, it may be necessary to make a modest
beginning and concentrate on a intradomain routing protocol, say, a
QoS-enhanced version of OSPF. Scalability via hierarhical aggregation,
in our opininon, is problem that can be separately tackled. Similarly,
interdomain routing is also an orthogonal issue. At the intradomain
level, the development of a routing scheme incorporating some of the
basic requirements outlined in this draft is achievable. Indeed,
commercially available proprietary routing solutions for frame relay
and ATM networks from vendors such as Cascade, FORE, Stratacom and
others demonstrate many of the desirable QoS-based routing features.
The following is a summary of related work in various areas, and the
missing pieces.


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                     Page 10

5.1     IP Routing Schemes

Among intradomain routing schemes, OSPF [3] is a link state routing
protocol, utilizing distributed state information. Under OSPF,
network topology, as well as an administratively configurable metric
for each link are propagated throughout the network using flooding.
Each node has its own view of the network state, and a shortest path
algorithm is used to compute the destination-based routing table. OSPF
allows the definition of a two-level routing hierarchy, and hence a
good degree of scaling. As compared to OSPF, a link state QoS-based
routing requires the dynamic distribution of link and nodal state
information, as the corresponding resource availability changes. For
scaling purposes, this would require a tree-based update propagation
scheme instead of flooding. Also, instead of destination-based
routing tables, a QoS-based routing scheme would use on-demand path
computation during flow establishment. This places an overhead on
routers, and efficient schemes have to be designed to minimize this
overhead. Finally, source routing, at least for flow establishment, has
to be used instead of destination oriented next hop forwarding. Some
state information will also be maintained by routers about each flow.

Interdomain routing protocols, such as BGP [14], primarily focus on
the control of information flow between administratively distinct
routing domains. As such, they do not maintain fine state information
about routing domains. Rather, topological reachability of domains,
subject to user-defined preferences for alternate route selection, is
the goal. Thus, BGP uses an enhanced distance-vector routing scheme
(called, path vector [15]), with destination-oriented hop by hop
forwarding. QoS-enhanced BGP requires work.

Among the newer approaches, Source Demand Routing (SDR) [16] allows
on-demand path computation by routers and the implementation of
strict and loose source source routing. The SDR approach can be used
for both intradomain and interdomain source routing. The Nimrod
architecture [17] has a number of concepts built in to handle
scalability and specialized path computation. These are applicable in
addressing the relevant aspects of QoS-based routing.

5.2     Internet Multicasting

IP multicasting is mainly concerned with establishing multicast trees
subject to changes in topology and receiver group membership [18]. IP
multicast schemes utilize the underlying unicast routing protocols to
establish the multicast trees. For example, the Multicast OSPF (MOSPF)
[19] works with OSPF. As with QoS-enhanced OSPF, it is possible to
consider a QoS-accommodating MOSPF.

More recent multicast routing protocols, such as Core-Based Trees
[20], and Protocol-Independent Multicast [21] do not rely on specific
types of unicast routing schemes. They may need extensive revision to
accommodate QoS. The MOSPF mode of operation is in fact more suitable
for QoS-based multicast routing, since it is possible to tap the
networkwide QoS status from the underlying link state routing scheme.
Given the availability of QoS information, many heuristic algorithms to
compute multicast trees are known [22-24]. The incorporation of flow
aggregation and the sharing of multicast trees by several sources, as
defined under RS-VP, into these algorithms requires work.


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                       Page 11

5.3     ATM Routing

The ATM PNNI routing scheme [12] is a hierarchical link state
QoS-based routing scheme. It incorporates mechanisms for QoS-based path
computation and scalability, but it does not address some of the
problems outlined earlier: routing of many-to-many multicast flows of
the type required by RSVP; interdomain policy routing issues; QoS
measurements on shared links; global admission control; flow
prioritization; efficient broadcast of state information; and
performance issues.

There has recently been some work on SVC routing schemes for ATM
networks. This research illustrates various approaches to achieving
higher throughput from routing schemes, as compared to single path
shortest-path routing. The flows considered usually have a single QoS
requirement, i.e., bandwidth. The following is a sampling of work in
this area. In [25], Sibal and Desimone describe a routing strategy for
multihop networks, modelled after the reservation-based alternate
routing strategy for two-hop phone networks [26]. This generalized
algorithm is based on distance vector routing, and allows only a
single bandwidth value for all flows. It also assumes that the input
traffic distribution is known apriori. In [27], Bahk and Zarki analyze
the throughput performance of several heuristic algorithms for
QoS-based routing. These algorithms are simple variants of
shortest-path, and some of them require coarse link state information.
Mitra, Morrison and Ramakrishnan present a scheme for optimal network
design [6] that assumes centralized routing and a small number of
bandwidth classes. Also, input traffic is assumed to have certain
characteristics. Gawlick, Kalmanek and Ramakrishnan present an
on-demand routing scheme for PVCs [28] and show its superiority over
shortestpath. This algorithm too is centralized. Finally, Ahmadi, Chen
and Guerin present a routing and admission control heuristic algorithm,
again with better performance than shortest-path [9].

The contributions of prior research in this area is of significant
importance, lending some insights into unicast path computation
procedures. The practical aspects of routing, such as overhead
reduction, and efficiency under a mix of traffic and information
aggregation, scalability, etc., have not been investigated thoroughly.
The definition of a practical IP QoS-based routing architecture, and
its implementation, requires new work as outlined in this draft.


6.      SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

There are many reasons to consider QoS-based routing as an essential
component of the overall integrated services Internet infrastructure.
The first step in developing a QoS-based routing architecture is the
specification of its requirements. In particular, the requirements for
interdomain routing need much discussion. In this draft, we presented
some potential requirements on path computation, efficiency, robustness
and scalability, and described some issues in realizing a QoS-based
routing architecture. Given that QoS-based routing is a challenging
problem, it may be best to consider the intradomain, interdomain and
scalability aspects separately.



draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                       Page 12

REFERENCES


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

2.      L. Zhang, S. E. Deering, D. Estrin, S. Shenker and D. Zappala,
"RSVP: A New Resource Reservation Protocol," Technical Report 95-607,
ISI, University of Southern California, 1995.

3.      J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2," RFC 1583, March, 1994.

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

5.      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.

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

7.      R.Callon et al, "Issues and Approaches for Integrated PNNI" ATM
Forum 96-0355, April 1996.

8.      B. Rajagopalan, "Efficient Link State Routing," Unpublished Report,
available from the author, braja@bellcore.com.

9.      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.

10.     Z. Wang and J. Crowcroft, "QoS Routing for Supporting Resource
Reservation," available at http://
boom.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/zwang/pub.htm.

11.     R. G. Moskowitz, "Why in the World is the Web So Slow?," Network
Computing, March, 15, 1996.

12.     ATM Forum PNNI subworking group, "Private Network - Network
Specification Interface v1.0 (PNNI 1.0)", afpnni-0055.00, March 1996.

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

14.     Y. Rekhter and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4),"
Internet Draft, September, 1992.

15.     B. Rajagopalan and M. Faiman, "A Responsive Distributed Algorithm
for Shortest-Path Routing within Autonomous Systems," Journal of
Internetworking Research, pp. 51-69, March, 1991.

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


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt                     Page 13


17.     I. Castineyra, J. N. Chiappa, and M. Steenstrup, "The Nimrod
Routing Architecture," Internet Draft,
draft-ietfnimrod-routing-arch-01.txt, Febrauary, 1996.

18.     S. E. Deering and D. P. Cheriton, "Multicast Routing in Datagram
Internetworks and Extended LANs," ACM Transactions on Computer Systems,
pp. 85-110, May, 1990.

19.     J. Moy, "MOSPF: Analysis and Experience," RFC 1585, March, 1994.

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

21.     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.

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

23.     X. Jiang, "Path Finding Algorithms for Broadband Multicast," in
High Speed Networking, III, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1991.

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

25.     S. Sibal and A. Desimone, "Controlling Alternate Routing in
General-Mesh Packet Flow Networks," Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM `95,
1995.

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

27.     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," Proceedings of SIGCOMM `92, pp. 53-64, 1992.

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

AUTHORS' ADDRESSES

   Bala Rajagopalan                            Raj Nair
   Bellcore                                    Ascom Nexen
   445 South Street, Rm 1A-257B                289 Great Rd.
   Morristown, NJ 07960                        Acton, MA 01720
   U.S.A                                       U.S.A

   Ph: +1-201-829-4261                         Ph: +1-508-266-4536
   Email: braja@bellcore.com                   Email: nair@nexen.com


draft-nair-qos-based-routing-00.txt (Expires 12/16/96)        Page 14