On Using Circuit-switched Networks

for File Transfers

Ph.D. Dissertation presented by

Xiuduan Fang
Department of Computer Science
University of Virginia
September 19, 2008
 Outline
• Overview
 Hypothesis
 Contributions & Publications
• Motivation
• Theoretical component:
 Design and evaluate algorithms to support file
transfers on circuit-switched networks
• Experimental component:
 Implement and demonstrate architecture for
internetworking circuit-switched networks with the
Internet
• Conclusions & Future work
2
 Hypothesis
Circuit-switched networks, with dynamic call-
by-call bandwidth sharing and support for
heterogeneous-rate circuits, can be used
efficiently to support file transfers, and can be
evolved gradually into the existing Internet.
Dissertation organization
end-to-end circuits?
Yes No
Theoretical component Experimental component
Call-admission control (CAC): Internetworking architecture
 rate allocation
 minimum file size

3
 Key Contributions
• File transfers on a hybrid architecture
 Constructed analytical models
 Provided insights on how to design admission control
 Proposed a novel heterogeneous rate-allocation
scheme to lower file-transfer delay

• Internetworking architecture
 Designed and implemented a gateway to interconnect
circuit networks with the Internet
 Characterized the gateway performance

4
 Publications
• Ph.D. dissertation:
 X. Fang and M. Veeraraghavan, On using circuit-switched
networks for file transfers,” accepted to IEEE Globecom, New
Orleans, LA, Nov. 2008.
 X. Fang, M. Veeraraghavan, M. E. McGinley, and R. W. Gisiger,
“An overlay approach for enabling access to dynamically
shared backbone GMPLS networks,” in Proc. of IEEE
ICCCN2007, Honolulu, Hawaii, Aug. 2007.
 X. Fang and M. Veeraraghavan, “On using a hybrid architecture
for file transfers,” Submitted to IEEE Transactions on Parallel
and Distributed Systems, 2008.

• MS thesis:
 M. Veeraraghavan, X. Fang, and X. Zheng, “On the suitability of
applications for GMPLS networks,” in Proc. of IEEE Globecom,
San Francisco, CA, Nov. 2006.
 X. Fang, X. Zheng, and M. Veeraraghavan, “Improving web
performance through new networking technologies,” IEEE
ICIW'06, Guadeloupe, French Caribbean, February 23-25, 2006.
5
 Outline
• Overview
 Hypothesis
 Contributions & Publications
Motivation
• Theoretical component:
 Design and evaluate algorithms to support file
transfers on circuit-switched networks
• Experimental component:
 Implement and demonstrate architecture for
internetworking circuit-switched networks with the
Internet
• Conclusions & Future work
6
 Motivation
• Why File Transfers on Circuit Networks?
 Packet switching is considered better than circuit
switching for file transfers
 Pros: high throughput under light loads
 Cons:
– Unpredictable delays
– Proportional fairness but no temporal fairness

 eScience community is using high-speed circuit-

switched networks for very large file transfers
 Predictable service time (admission control)
 Temporal fairness: give deference to job seniority

7
 Dissertation Organization
end-to-end circuits?

Yes No
Theoretical component: Experimental component:
File transfers on Interconnect circuit networks
a hybrid architecture with the Internet
Call blocking for circuit network?  Designed a gateway
Yes No  Implemented software

Call blocking Call queueing  Characterized performance

circuit network circuit network Published in ICCCN2007
homogeneous rate allocation rate allocation

 Analytical model
Submitted to TPDS
Blocked calls rerouted
to the Internet path
Homogeneous Heterogeneous
 Analytical model  Analytical model
 Simulation model  Simulation model
 Fairness issue

Accepted by Globecom2008
For large files, waiting for high-speed circuit s is a better
option than being immediately rerouted to Internet path
 Hybrid Architecture - Example

Internet2's new Dynamic Circuit (DC) network

Yellow nodes: Ciena CD-CI SONET switches Courtesy: Rick Summerhill
(2006)
Blue nodes: Juniper T640 IP routers
9
 Dissertation Organization
end-to-end circuits?

Yes No
Theoretical component: Experimental component:
File transfers on Interconnect circuit networks
a hybrid architecture with the Internet
Call blocking for circuit network?  Designed a gateway
Yes No  Implemented software

Call blocking Call queueing  Characterized performance

circuit network circuit network Published in ICCCN2007
homogeneous rate allocation rate allocation

 Analytical model
Submitted to TPDS
Blocked calls rerouted
to the Internet path
Homogeneous Heterogeneous
 Analytical model  Analytical model
 Simulation model  Simulation model
 Fairness issue

Accepted by Globecom2008
For large files, waiting for high-speed circuits is a better
option than being immediately rerouted to Internet path
 Call-blocking Circuit Network
• Goal: design efficient connection-admission control
(CAC) algorithms
 Metrics: file-transfer delay and utilization
• Block call if circuit is unavailable; reroute to Internet
• Our focus:
 What is an appropriate minimum file size?
 Serve files sized x > minimum file size, Â, via the
circuit network
 What is an appropriate circuit rate, r, for a file transfer?

11
 Analytical Model
Internet
N
¸0
x>Â
Y ¸0 1
routing decision Link L

…
capacity C
n

Circuit network
Assumptions:
• Single class
 homogeneous rate allocation
 m circuits; per-circuit rate, r=C/m
• Call arrival process: Poisson with rate, ¸0 [Paxson95]
• Call holding times: Pareto distribution [Crovella97]
[Paxson95] V. Paxson and S. Floyd, "Wide area traffic: the failure of Poisson modeling," Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on , vol.3, no.3, pp.226-244, Jun 1995
[Crovella97] M. E. Crovella and A. Bestavros, Self-Similarity in World Wide Web Traffic: Evidence and Possible Causes, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 5(6):835--846.
 Key Insights
 Combine M/G/m/m loss model & TCP delay model
 Erlang-B formula: input the number of channels, m, & traffic load;
output: call blocking probability and utilization
 TCP model: bottleneck link rate, round-trip time, packet loss rate
[Padhye98]
 Two criteria to select Â
 Delay-based (user-perspective): compare delay estimates
across two paths
 Utilization (service provider-perspective): make circuit-setup
overhead a small fraction (e.g., 10%) of circuit file-transfer delay
 Define a metric to quantify mean delay reduction
1
R = s-1 (E[Ttcp(x)]-E[Tcircuit(x)])¢fX(x)dx
 Compute mopt (ropt = C/ mopt) & Âopt that maximize R
[Padhye98] J. Padhye, V. Firoiu, D. Towsley, and J. Kurose, “Modeling TCP throughput: A simple modeland its empirical validation,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 1998, pp. 303–314.
 Key Results
• To maximize R, ropt should be much higher than effective
throughput on the Internet path
 e.g., Internet path: bottleneck link rate = 100 Mb/s,
RTT = 50 ms, packet loss rate = 1%
) effective throughput = 1.9 Mb/s
Circuit path: link capacity = 10 Gb/s, call-setup delay = 1 sec
) ropt = 63 Mb/s & Âopt = 75 MB
 If r = 2 Mb/s ) Â = 4.5 MB
) Files of size (4.5 MB, 75MB) will get lower delay on circuits
But, mean delay will increase; hence directed to Internet
• Load sensitive: under low loads,
 Larger per-call circuit rate, ropt
 Larger ropt ) Larger minimum file size, Âopt
 Relax utilization criterion to decrease Âopt
• RTT sensitive: Larger ropt & Âopt for short-RTT path
14
 Dissertation Organization
end-to-end circuits?

Yes No
Theoretical component: Experimental component:
File transfers on Interconnect circuit networks
a hybrid architecture with the Internet
Call blocking for circuit networks?  Designed a gateway
Yes No  Implemented software

Call blocking Call queueing  Characterized performance

circuit network
homogeneous rate allocation
 Analytical model
Submitted to TPDS
Blocked calls sent to
the Internet path
circuit network Published in ICCCN2007
rate allocation
Homogeneous Heterogeneous
 Analytical model  Analytical model
 Simulation model  Simulation model
 Fairness issue

Accepted by Globecom2008
For large files, waiting for high-speed circuits is a better
option than being immediately rerouted to Internet path
 Homogeneous Rate Allocation
• Key question: how much bandwidth should be allocated for
each file transfer so that the system performance is optimized
in terms of mean response time at a given effective utilization?
• Metrics: mean response time

• File size: bounded-

Pareto distribution
• Call arrival: Poisson

16
 M/G/m queueing model
• Goal: compute per-call circuit rate, ropt (i.e., C /mopt)
• Input:
 A set of m = {1, 10, 100, 1000}
 Link capacity C = 10 Gb/s
) r = {10Gb/s, 1Gb/s, 100Mb/s, 10Mb/s}
 Call setup delay = 1 sec
 Bounded-Pareto parameters
) the first two moments of service time
 Traffic load 2 (0, 1)
• Output:
 Effective utilization: call-setup delay overhead
 Mean waiting time
17
 Numerical Results

Bandwidth allocation should be load sensitive

18
 Heterogeneous Rate Allocation
• Heterogeneous scheme: divide calls into classes based on file size &
allocate each class a different-rate circuit

A complete-partitioning system

19
 Analytical model
• Multiple separate M/G/m subsystems
 Basis for classifying calls: cutoff points, Â1,…, Ân-1?
 Bandwidth allocation per subsystem, C1, …, Cn?
 Ideal per-call circuit rate for each class, r1, …, rn?
• To compute optimal operating point that minimizes mean
response time:
 Mathematica optimization package
 e.g., for a 2-class system
 Start with an initial value for Â1
 Determine C1, C2 & r1, r2
 Vary Â1 to study its impact
• Fairness:
 Fairness ratio: ratio of mean slowdown of 2 classes
20
 Slowdown: ratio of waiting time to service requirement
 File-size distribution parameters:
Smallest file size: l = 1 MB
 Largest file size: u = 1 TB
 Cutoff point: Â = 1000 MB

 Homogeneous system is virtually

divided into 2 subsystems by Â

21
 Fairness Ratio (small-file to large-file)

Homogeneous system
(at all utilization levels)

Heterogeneous system

• A complete-partitioning heterogeneous scheme treats small

files more fairly when compared with a complete-sharing
homogeneous scheme 22
 Simulation Study

• Single-link: simulation results are

consistent with analytical results
• Multi-link: fairness study
 Short-path vs. long-path calls
 Work-conserving scheme: unfair to long-path calls
 Proposed conditional-priority scheme: give priority
to long-path calls based on queue occupancy
 Small-file vs. large-file calls
 Complete-partitioning heterogeneous scheme

23
 Key Results
• Complete-partitioning heterogeneous rate
allocation
 Large files allocated high-rate circuits
 Lowers mean response time
 Treats small files more fairly when compared with
complete-sharing
 Requires a network management system to monitor
traffic load & dynamically update partitions
• Conditional priority scheme improves the fair
treatment between long-path and short-path
calls
24
 Dissertation Organization
end-to-end circuits?

Yes No

Theoretical component: Experimental component:

File transfers on Interconnect circuit networks
a hybrid architecture with the Internet
Call blocking for circuit networks?
 Designed a gateway
Yes No
 Implemented software
Call blocking Call queueing  Characterized performance
circuit network circuit network Published in ICCCN2007
homogeneous rate allocation rate allocation

 Analytical model
Submitted to TPDS
Blocked calls rerouted
to the Internet path
Homogeneous Heterogeneous
 Analytical model  Analytical model
 Simulation model  Simulation model
 Fairness issue

Accepted by Globecom2008
For large files, waiting for high-speed circuit s is a better
option than being immediately rerouted to Internet path
 Experimental Component
• Motivation:
 It is expensive to deploy a new networking technology on an
end-to-end basis
 As link speeds increase, high-capacity circuit switches are
cheaper than packet switches
 Circuit-switched (CS) networks operated in shared mode )
admission control (AC) phase
 Connectionless (CL) networks have no admission control
phase
 So internetworking CL + shared CS is a challenge

• Our solution: gateway that implements all sub-layers of the

network layer with data-plane and control-plane (AC)
• Metrics: reliable file transfer, circuit utilization, forwarding rate
26
 Related Work
• State-of-the-art: IP routers
 Original purpose: interconnect connectionless networks [Cerf74,
RFC791, Clark88]
 Connection-oriented networks when used in the Internet are
used only in leased-line mode
• Proposed but not deployed:
 IP-over-ATM internetworking: Ipsilon's IP switching
 Routers have to "guess" which flows are long-lived
 TCP switching: IP switching with protocol classifier

[Cerf74] V. G. Cerf and R. E. Kahn, “A protocol for packet network intercommunication,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 637–648, May 1974.
[Clark88] D. D. Clark, “The design philosophy of the DARPA Internet protocols,” in SIGCOMM. Stanford, CA: ACM, Aug. 1988, pp. 106–114. 27
 Internetworking Architecture
R
Web client IP-router core Web server
subnetwork
R R
S R R R S
S R
CAG
R R R S
CAG CAG
enterprise R R enterprise
network network
regional Circuit regional
network subnetwork
network
Connectionless
Connectionless

R IP router S Ethernet switch circuit/VC switch CAG Circuit-aware application gateway

28
 Internetworking Architecture
R
Web client IP-router core Web server
subnetwork
R R
S R R R S
S R
CAG
R R R S
CAG CAG
enterprise R R enterprise
network network
regional Circuit/ regional
network subnetwork
network

R IP router S Ethernet switch circuit/VC switch CAG Circuit-aware application gateway

HTTP/TCP/connectionless IP HTTP/CTCP/circuit

29
 Gateway Design
• Start with an open-source Web proxy software
package called Squid

• Data-plane:
 Base functionality provided by Squid
 Integrated Circut-TCP (removes Slow Start, receive-side
autotuning)

• Control-plane: Integrated RSVP-TE signaling client

module into Squid to initiate circuit setup/release

30
 Gateway Design contd.
• Unpredictable rate across connectionless (CL) segments
• But fixed-rate across circuit-switched (CS) segments
• What if these are mismatched?
• Need buffering within gateways
• Buffers are finite: so possibility of losses?
• Squid implementation: back-pressure mechanism;
 Data not read from incoming TCP buffer if Squid buffer
(controlled by read_ahead_gap) is full
 Latter is full if outgoing TCP buffer is full
• Leads to circuit utilization problems
• Answer: main memory or disk buffering in gateways +
multiplexing on circuits
31
 Experimental Hypothesis
A modified version of Squid software can be used
as a gateway to interconnect circuit-switched
networks and connectionless packet-switched
networks for reliable file transfers, and can support
an effective throughput of 460 Mb/s when executed
on a Linux 2.6.20 host with a 2.8GHz Xeon
processor and 1 GB memory.

32
 Experimental setup to test
if there is buffer overflow

• NIC speeds: CHEETAH NIC (NIC2) = GbE, Internet NIC (NIC1) ¸ 100 Mb/s
• Circuit (zelda1 $ zelda4) rate=155Mb/s, link (zelda4 $ zelda5) rate=1Gb/s
• Control link rate on zelda1 ! zelda2 path to mismatch sending and
receiving rates
• The parameter read_ahead_gap controls CAG’s application buffer for each
flow, read_ahead_gap = 16 KB (default value)
33
 CAG zelda1’s forwarding rate CAG zelda1’s CPU and memory usage

• Key results:
 No packet loss in buffers within
CAGs due to a back-pressure
mechanism

 Drawback: low circuit utilization

e.g., only 1/155 < 1% for 1 Mb/s
bottleneck link rate
CAG zelda1’s receive window size for 34
zelda1 $ zelda4 CTCP connection
 Improving Circuit Utilization
• Configured read_ahead_gap:
 e.g., when read_ahead_gap (for CAG zelda1) = 1 GB, circuit
utilization = 90% for a 1-GB file transfer
 Problem: unscalable because Squid only uses main memory for
buffering in-transit data

• Disk buffering: used two instances of Squid on a CAG

35
 Other Experiments & Analysis
• Measured maximum forwarding rate
 Stress test by using long flows: 460 ± 4.75 Mb/s

• Measured user-perceived throughput

 Throughput improvement when circuits replace
congested Internet paths.

• Related the internetworking architecture with the

TCP/IP & OSI reference models
 Fits into the OSI model

36
 Conclusions
• File transfers on circuit-switched (CS) networks
 Advantage relative to packet switching: predictable service time
• Packet switching (PS) better for small file transfers
 Call setup delay >> Transfer time (link rates ↑, transfer time ↓)
 Predictability not a concern when absolute delays are low
• Hence hybrid architecture: PS for small; CS for large
Internet path Considered in Not
Circuit metrics routing decision considered
network operation
Call blocking √ X
Call queueing X √
 Call admission control algorithms designed to be fair across
small-file, large-file & across short-path, long-path
37
 Conclusions contd.
• Designed a gateway called CAG to interconnect
connectionless networks with circuit networks
 CAG implements all sub-layers of the network layer with
data-plane and control-plane (admission control)
 CAG supports reliable file transfers
 File transfers need high-speed links on whole path
 Gradually evolving circuit-switched networks for access
(current bottleneck) will lead to improved performance

38
 Future Work
• More sophisticated bandwidth-sharing schemes
 Currently studied a complete partitioning scheme
 To avoid sensitivity to network management system
performance as is the case with partitioning
• Hardware-based implementation of CAG with the
support of disk buffering for in-transit data
 Current software implementation could slow down
effective transmission rates

39
Questions from Form G111
Thank you!
Questions?

41
 Questions from Form G111 -

Defining the problem

• Has the student stated the problem clearly, provided

its motivation, and the requirements for a solution?

• In the context of new optical circuit-switched

technologies and new application requirements, how
do we support file transfers efficiently on a
dynamically shared circuit-switched network and
how can we interconnect a circuit network with a
connectionless network?

42
 Questions from Form G111 -

Analysis of previous and related work

• Theoretical component: file transfers on circuit networks
 Packet switching is considered better
 But circuit switching provides rate guarantees
 Very large file transfers on optical connection-oriented testbeds
 e.g.: ESnet4, NSF DRAGON, CA*net4, UKLight, JGN2, etc.
 Focus: implementation & inter-domain usage
 Our work: how much bandwidth to allocate per file transfer
 File transfers have not been considered on other circuit/virtual-circuit
networks
 e.g.: telephone networks, ATM

• Experimental component: interconnect circuit networks with

connectionless networks
 State-of-the-art: IP routers
 Original purpose: interconnect connectionless networks
 Used leased line modes to include circuit networks
 Proposed but not deployed: IP switching & TCP switching
 Our work: gateway that handles service-type mismatch between
connectionless and circuit networks
43
 Questions from Form G111 -

Success criteria
• Has the student adequately defined the measure(s) of success to be
used to evaluate the work? Is there a well defined metric with a goal?
Does the metric adequately represent the desired success criteria?

• Success criteria
 Theoretical work: use a hybrid architecture for file transfers
 Call blocking circuit network: optimal design parameters to maximize mean
delay reduction
 Call queueing circuit network: optimal design parameters to minimize mean
response time at a given effective utilization
 Experimental work: designed an internetworking gateway called CAG
 CAG supports reliable file transfers
 Improved circuit utilization
 Measured maximum forwarding rate of CAG

• Metrics
 Theoretical work: file-transfer delay, utilization, mean delay reduction,
fairness ratio
 Experimental work: reliable file transfer, circuit utilization, forwarding rate,
user-perceived throughput
44
 Questions from Form G111 -

Solution
• Is the approach taken well executed? Does it appear to be correct?
Is the work technically challenging? Does the student utilize
appropriate professional standards?

• A combination of analytical, simulation, and experimental methods

 Call blocking circuit network for file transfers
 Analytical model
 Call queueing circuit network for file transfers
 Analytical model
 Simulation model
 An internetworking gateway
 Software implementation
 Experimentation and measurements
 Architecture positioning

45
 Questions from Form G111 -

Innovation and risk

• To what extent is the work innovative? Has the student taken a risk
in applying the chosen approach?

• Bandwidth sharing problem on using circuit networks for file

transfers has not been studied before

• The problem of internetworking connectionless networks and

dynamically shared circuit networks has not been addressed widely
(only one previous solution – from the 90s which proved unviable)

46
 Questions from Form G111 -

Broader implications

• Has the student considered the broader implications of

the work? Broader implication may include social,
economic, political, technical, ethical, business, etc.

• Enable the deployment of high-speed circuit networks at

low costs (sharing) to provide predictable-delay services
 New applications can be created with this type of service

• Integrated with Internet

 Avoids need for desert-start deployment

47
 Background –
High-Speed Circuit-Switching
• Data-plane technologies
 Switching: Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) &
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM)
 Mapping: to carry Ethernet frames via SONET signals or
WDM lightpaths
• Control plane: Generalized MultiProtocol Label
Switched (GMPLS)
 Three components: signaling, routing, & management
 Bandwidth sharing mode: immediate-request (IR)
• Equipment examples:
 SONET switches: Sycamore SN16000
 WDM switches: Adva/Movaz RayExpress OADM
48
 Layers in OSI reference model
AL: Application Layer DLL or L: Data-Link Layer
TL: Transport Layer PHY or P: Physical Layer

Sublayers of network layer (NL)

• SNICF: Subnetwork Independent Convergence Function
• SNDCF: Subnetwork Dependent Convergence Function
• SNACF: Subnetwork Access Function
• SNSF: Subnetwork Switching Function
[ITU X.200] http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.200-199407-I/en
[Callon83] R. E. Callon, "Internetwork protocol,“ Proc of the IEEE, vol. 71, no. 12, pp. 1388-1393, Dec. 1983
 Layers in the Internetworking
Architecture

This internetworking architecture fits into OSI reference model

50
Analytical Model: Homogeneous Rate Allocation
• File-size distribution: bounded-pareto, BP(®, l, u),
®: shape, l: minimum file size, u: largest file size

• Service time:

• Per-server traffic intensity:

• Effective utilization:

• Mean waiting time:

• Mean response time:

Analytical Model: Heterogeneous Rate Allocation
• Each subsystem:
 File-size distribution: bounded-pareto, BP(®, Âi-1, Âi),
®: shape, Âi-1 : minimum file size, Âi : largest file size
E[Y j ] =  pi ¢ E[Yij]

 Call arrival rate:

 Capacity:

• Whole system:

 Effective utilization:

 Mean response time:

Simulation Results: Multiple-link

53
 Model Validation & Verification

• Model validation “Three aspects of model validation

 Assumptions
 Our models are for an initial design  Input parameter values and distributions
to support file transfers on circuit networks  Output values and conclusions” [Jain91]
 No real-world measurements
 Model validation technique – peer/expert reviews
 Real system measurements “available”
for input parameters
 E.g., real-system measurements for file transfer
– Poisson call arrival process “Three validation techniques
– Pareto distribution  Expert intuition
 Real system measurements
 Theoretical results” [Jain91]
• Model verification
 Compare analytical model results with simulation model results

[Jain91] R. Jain, The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis: Techniques for Experimental Design, Measurement, Simulation, and Modeling, New York, Wiley-Interscience, 1991.

54
 Related Work –
File Transfers on Other Testbeds
• Other testbeds: Large file transfers  high per-circuit
rate, long holding time  Coarse-Grained Sharing
(CGS)
• Our interest: Fine-Grained Sharing (FGS) for all files

Leased Line CGS FGS TCP/IP

coarse fine
Different bandwidth sharing modes

55
 Circuit-switched networks:
Signaling for call setup
Connection setup (Dest: III-B;
BW: OC1; Timeslot: a, 1) II

b a
Host a
I III Host
I-A c b
b
d c III-B
c
a IV V
Dest. Next hop d
Routing
table III-* IV

Connection setup actions at each switch on the path:

1. Parse message to extract parameter values
2. Lookup routing table for next hop to reach destination
3. Read and update CAC (Connection Admission Control)
table
4. Select timeslots on output port
5. Configure switch fabric: write entry into timeslot
mapping table
6. Construct setup message to send to next hop
56
 Connection-Admission Control (CAC)
Network
Receive a file-transfer
Management System
request with size x
configures Â

1
Y N
x>Â
2
¸ Simple
 & rx
N-1 sum
CAC
N allocate a circuit reject
with rate rx
Â: crossover file size
rx: allocated bandwidth
Switch model
Y Simple sum: N
rx < available bandwidth

accept reject

The procedure of CAC 57

 Design and Implementation

• How does a CAG select the “best” parent?

 Static configuration based on geographic location of
Web servers using ARIN WHOIS database

• How does a user configure the Web client to use

the Web proxy server?
 Configuring for every request is not user-friendly
 Instead, use Proxy Auto-Configuration (PAC)

58
 File Transfers on
Other Circuit/VC Networks
• Has ATM implemented file transfers with a guaranteed
service?  No.
 Service classes on the ATM layer
 Hard QoS for multimedia applications

 CBR: voice & VBR: audio

 No QoS at the ATM level for all other data traffic
 ABR & UBR

 File transfers are served by UBR

 No guaranteed bandwidth allocation

 Loss recovered with ARQ in TCP

 No effort to maintain flow rate to match VC rate

59
 Analytical Model (cont.)
 M/G/m/m loss model
 Erlang-B: compute call blocking probability, Pb, and utilization, Ub,
given the number of channels, m, and traffic load, ½

0  1
RD Link L, capacity C

…
N

RD: routing decision

A switch model for file transfers

 The computation of ½:
¸: aggregate call arrival rate offered to the switch
1/¹: mean call holding time

60
 The Derivation of
Offered Traffic Load, ½
File size: Pareto distribution Serve files with Original call
size x >  arrival rate, N¢¸0
®: shape, k: scale

Circuit file-transfer delay Mean file size

Mean call holding time Aggregate offered call arrival rate

Tprop: propagation delay Offered traffic load

C/m: per-circuit rate
61
 The Selection of
Crossover File Size, Â
 Delay-based, Âd: compare two delay values

where

Pb: call blocking probability

 Utilization-based, Âu: the mean call-setup delay, E[Tsetup], is
a small fraction of circuit file-transfer delay, Ttransfer(x)
e.g., ¯=10

 Choose
62
 Numerical Results - Input Parameters
 File size distribution: shape, ®=1.0009, scale,
k=1000bytes
 Circuit:
 Link capacity C=10Gbps
 Original call arrival rate, N¢¸0=1100calls/second
 Mean call setup delay, E[Tsetup]=1second
 Round trip time, RTT=50ms
 Utilization factor, ¯=10
 Internet path
 Bottleneck link rate, r=100Mbps
 Packet loss rate, Ploss=1%
 Round trip time, RTT=50ms

63
 Numerical Results:
Utilization-based crossover file size Impact of Per-circuit Rate on Â

Delayed-based crossover file size

Link capacity expressed in channels

High per-circuit rate Low per-circuit rate 64

 Numerical Results:
Utilization-based crossover file size Impact of Per-circuit Rate on Â

Delayed-based crossover file size

m=1000

m=100

For m=10, 100, and 1000 (i.e, per-circuit rate is 1Gb/s, 100Mb/s, and 10Mb/s)
Âu is the limiting factor  Simplifies the computation of Â
65
 Numerical Results: Impact of
Per-circuit Rate on File-transfer Delay
File transfer delay over circuits or the Internet

m=10, 100, and 1000 $

per-circuit rate is 1Gb/s
100Mb/s, & 10Mb/s

(11.9MB) (118.9MB) (1.2GB)

66
Numerical Results: Impact of
Per-circuit Rate on Mean Delay Reduction

67
 Design and Implementation
• Gateway:
Receive a Web request
 Started with an open-
source Web proxy
software package called Y N
Cache miss
Squid
 Integrated RSVP-TE
signaling client module Y Circuit to N
parent Serve the
into Squid to initiate circuit
request
set up/release
 Integrated Circut-TCP
(removes Slow Start,
Serve the Fork a process to
receive-side autotuning)
request via attempt a circuit setup;
 Added monitoring module the circuit
to watch circuit usage. Meanwhile, serve the
Initiate circuit release if request via the IP-
idle for time >T router core subnetwork

68
 Experiments to Measure
User-perceived Response Time

• Two sets
 Controllable experiments by loading specific-
size files on a Web server
 Operational Web sites

• For each set, two tests

 Direct without proxy
 CHEETAH proxy: via CAGs but without
caching
69
 Experimental Results – 1st Set
Web client:
Web server: Internet
unc-planetlab1
zelda2
Chapel Hill, NC
NIC1
NIC1
NIC2
CHEETAH NIC2
zelda1 SN16000 SN16000
CAG circuit wuneng
CAG
Atlanta, GA Raleigh, NC

direct CHEETAH proxy

unc-planetlab1 unc-planetlab1 wuneng zelda1 zelda1zelda2
zelda2 wuneng (circuit)
10.77 ms 1.27 ms 8.87 ms 0.23 ms

File size 100 KB 1 MB 10 MB 100 MB

Test(Mb/s)
Direct 10.70± 0.65 15.08± 0.55 17.25± 0.52 16.71± 0.66
CHEETAH proxy 13.61± 0.76 46.40± 1.70 64.64± 3.21 58.59± 2.30
70
 Experimental Results – 2nd Set

Web client Web server

Ballstein.cs.virginia.edu

wuneng CHEETAH zelda1

Web server parameters RTT (ms) Bottleneck file size Latencies (s)
via the local RTT (MB)
name Internet (ms) direct CHEETAH
location Proxy

kernel.org Carrollton, 86 61.6 48 70 33

TX
sourceforge.net Atlanta, GA 32 14.6 113 520 140

71
 Background –
High-Speed Circuit-Switched Networks
 US: DOE’s UltraScience net, CHEETAH, Internet2 Dynamic Circuit network
 Europe: UKLight (UK), SURFnet (Netherland), VIOLA (Germany), MUPBED
 Canada: CA*net 4
 Japan: JGN

Oak Ridge, TN

SN16000 Raleigh, NC
To Cray X1
GbE/
OC192 Control
10GbE H zelda4 SN16000
card Card
card H zelda5 GbE/
OC192 Control
10GbE
card Card H wukong
card

Atlanta, GA
OC-192 OC-192
SN16000
H zelda1
GbE/
OC192 Control H zelda2
10GbE
card Card
card H zelda3
CHEETAH: Circuit-switched High-speed
End-to-End Transport ArcHitecture

SN16000: circuit switch 72

 Numerical Results for
Fixed Per-call Circuit Rates

Under high loads (U > 73%), heterogeneous scheme

lowers mean waiting time
 By partitioning, small files do not need to wait for large files to
complete ) small files are treated more fairly 73