CCNxCon2012: Session 5: Interest Rate Control for Content-Centric Networking

Uploaded on

Interest Rate Control for Content-Centric Networking …

Interest Rate Control for Content-Centric Networking
Luca Muscariello, Massimo Gallo (France Telecom R&D, Orange Labs), Giovanna Carofiglio (Bell Labs, Alcatel-Lucent), Michele Papalini (University of Lugano, Switzerland and Bell Labs Alcatel-Lucent)

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Joint Hop-by-hop and Receiver-DrivenInterest Control Protocol forContent-Centric Networks Massimo Gallo (Orange labs), joint work with: Giovanna Carofiglio (Bell Labs), Luca Muscariello (Orange labs). CCNxCon 2012 - September 13th, 2012 - Sophia Antipolis
  • 2. AGENDA1.  Transport issues in CCN2.  Receiver-driven Interest control3.  Hop-by-hop Interest control: design and analysis4.  Performance Evaluation5.  Hop-by-hop Interest control: benefits6.  Conclusions
  • 3. CCN Transport - KEY ASPECTS UNIQUE ENDPOINT AT THE RECEIVER No connection instantiation, multiple senders for the same CACHE CACHE content retrieval, unknown a priori at the receiver CACHE PULL-BASED POINT TO REPO MULTIPOINT RETRIEVAL Interests for the same content retrieval can be forwarded in a Data point-to-multipoint fashion: better USER CACHE CACHE throughput, better traffic load balancing if multiple sources in Interests parallel MULTIPLE SOURCES Data can be retrieved by multiple CACHE repositories, but also intermediate caches CACHE CACHE
  • 4. CCN congestion control mechanisms@ the receiverCCN receiver is the unique flow endpoint:•  knows application requirements, end-to-end round trip delay per packet retrieval, receiver buffer (flow size)•  is the best place where to control content retrieval over multiple paths@ network nodesCCN nodes know Interest/Data rates of flows (identified by content name)per interface:•  Interest/Data traverse the same nodes in opposite directions•  provide hop-by-hop Interest control•  handle bursty traffic and react faster
  • 5. Receiver-driven Interest Control Protocol (ICP)DESIGN•  One Interest per Data packet, in the order decided by the application•  Window-based Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD): !  W is increased by !/W at each Data packet reception !  W is decreased by "W at each timer expiration (a timer is set at the receiver for each Interest sent out) and no more than once in a time interval equal to the timer duration•  Adaptive timer expiration value, ! , based on RTT estimates over ahistory of samples! reflects the average virtual RTT and may be associated to a path
  • 6. Hop-by-Hop Interest Control - OBJECTIVESBasic IdeaIf Interest rate> fair rate at a given interface, one can queue and delayInterests at output interface to reduce Data queuing at the bottleneckInterest control at network node:•  anticipate congestion detection bymonitoring Interest/Data rate•  trigger rate reduction via Interestshaping before timer expiration at thereceiver.•  control PIT entries according toUpstream resources
  • 7. Hop-by-Hop Interest Control - DESIGN•  One virtual queue per flow at each output interface, identified by the content name•  One credit counter per virtual queue initialized to B Data bytes that the flow can transmit with no additional delay•  The counter is: •  incremented at the estimated fair rate •  decremented by forwarded Interests
  • 8. Hop-by-Hop Interest Control - DESIGN (cont’d) @ interest arrivalShaping algorithm: (after CS/PIT/FIB lookup) No bottlenecked Yes ? queueInterest in a send Interest drop tail FIFO served (no additional delay) at !i(t)Shaping rate: •  is the rate of non-bottlenecked flows (total rate of non shaped flows, counting the size of the corresponding Data packets)•  is the # of bottlenecked flows (# of non empty queues)"
  • 9. Hop-by-Hop Interest Control - ANALYSISMain ResultWe prove that HR-ICP is stable and converges to the max-min fair rateof ICP, where the shaping queue Qsi (t) replaces Qi(t) in the ICP system
  • 10. Performance EvaluationImpact of Interest Control on User Performance•  Implementation oh Interest shaping mechanism in CCNPL-Sim (C++ event driven simulator for the CCN architecture)• Two hops network, single content retrieval. ICP vs constant window, w or w/o Hop by Hop Interest control: Interest Delivery Time Throughput LossesResults Window [s] [Mbps] [%]•  Hop-by-hop Interest W [pkts] With W/o With W/o With W/o HbH HbH HbH HbH HbH HbHShaping is not enough 2 2.42 2.42 16.30 16.30 0 0•  Interest shaping reduces 10 1.00 1.00 39.70 39.60 0 0Data packet losses 15 1.00 2.08 39.60 19.20 0 11.20 20 1.00 1.90 39.60 20.90 0 15.30 ICP 1.00 1.00 39.80 39.80 0 0
  • 11. Performance EvaluationThe benefits of HR-ICP over ICP Repositor Three flows: y •  2 ICP (t1=0s, t1=0.5s) C1= 100Mbps C2= 40 Mbps •  CBR (t=1s - avg 40Mbps).Results•  HR-ICP queues Interests before the bottleneck link (Q1s not Q2, Q2 is zero )•  ICP flows almost not affected w H2H, get the fair rate, W slightly reduced•  Greedy CBR flow looses (CBR rate - fair rate)
  • 12. Performance EvaluationPrioritization of real-time and delay sensitive traffic Repositor Repositor y y C1= 100Mbps C2= 40 Mbps C3= 100 Mbps C4= 20 MbpsThree flows:•  ICP 1 bottlenecked at 4 (t=0s),•  ICP 2 bottlenecked at 2 (t=0.5s),•  4 Interests in batch every 10ms (t=0.5s, avg 5Mbps - peak 100 Mbps).Results:•  HR-ICP queues Interests before bottleneck,•  ICP flows almost not affected, while the new flow gets priority along the request path.
  • 13. HBH Interest shaping - benefits"  Interest not Data Control"  Early Congestion Detection"  Protection from misbehaving receivers"  Scalability/Feasibility"  Delay-sensitive flows protection"  No interest losses"  Additional traffic control opportunities
  • 14. ConclusionsWe show that#  Hop-by-hop Interest shaping enhances rate and congestion control performance#  Compared to alternative solutions for CCN Interest control, ourproposal brings additional benefits due to: $  the coupling with a rate/fairness optimal receiver control, $  the positioning of Interest shaper at output interfaces, $  the shaping mechanism based on Data max-min fair rate.Future worksdefinition of traffic control mechanisms for the management of a multipathcommunication, coupled with an Interest forwarding policy.
  • 15. QuestionsCCN Simulator soon available at: muscariello/sim