A Core-Stateless Utility Based Rate Allocation Framework

  • Narayanan Venkitaraman
  • Jayanth P. Mysore
  • Mike Needham
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2334)


In this paper, we present a core-stateless framework for allocating bandwidth to flows based on their requirements which are expressed using utility functions. The framework inherently supports flows with adaptive resource requirements and intra-flow drop priorities. The edge routers implement a labeling algorithm which in effect embeds partial information from a flow’s utility function in each packet. The core routers maintain no per-flow state. Forwarding decisions are based a packets label and on a threshold utility value that is dynamically computed. Thus the edge and core routers work in tandem to provide bandwidth allocations based on a flow’s utility function. We show how the labeling algorithm can be tailored to provide different services like weighted fair rate allocations. We then show the performance of our approach using simulations.


Utility Function Queue Length Bandwidth Allocation Queue Size Packet Header 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    R. Barnes, R. Srikant, J.P. Mysore, N. Venkitaraman “Analysis of Stateless Fair Queuing Algorithms”, to appear in Proc. of 35th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, March 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Z. Cao and E. Zegura. “Utility Max-Min: An application-Oriented Bandwidth Allocation Scheme”, Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Z. Cao, Z. Wang and E. Zegura. “Rainbow Fair Queuing: Fair Bandwidth Sharing Without Per-Flow State”, Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F.P. Kelly. “Charging and Rate Control for Elastic Traffic”, European Transactions on Telecommunications, vol 8, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. J. Gibbens and F.P. Kelly. “Distributed connection acceptance control for a connectionless network”, Proceedings of the 16th International Teletraffic Congress, Edinburg, June 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Key, D. McAuley, P. Barham. “Congestion Pricing for Congestion Avoidance”, Technical Report MSR-TR-99-15, Microsoft Research, Febuary 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Massoulie and J. Roberts. “Bandwidth Sharing: Objectives and Algorithms”, Proc. of INFOCOM, March 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Mo and J. Warlang. “Fair end-to-end Window based Congestion Control”Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. McCanne, V. Jacobson, and M. Vetterli. “Receiver-driven layered multicast”, Proc. SIGCOMM’96, Stanford, CA, Aug. 1996, ACM, pp. 117–130.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Shenker “Fundamental Design Issues for the Future Internet”, IEEE JSAC Vol 13, No. 7, September 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Kunniyur and R. Srikant “End-to-End Congestion Control Schemes: Utility Functions, Random Losses and ECN Marks”, Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Raghupathy, T. Kim, N. Venkitaraman, and V. Bharghavan. “Providing a Flexible Service Model with a Stateless Core”, Proc. of ICDCS 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. Stoica and H. Zhang. “Providing Guaranteed Services Without Per Flow Management”, Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM’ 99 Conference, September 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Stoica, S. Shenker and H. Zhang. “ Core-Stateless Fair Queueing: Achieveing approximately Fair Bandwidth Allocations in High Speed Networks”, Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM’ 98 Conference, September 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Narayanan Venkitaraman
    • 1
  • Jayanth P. Mysore
    • 1
  • Mike Needham
    • 1
  1. 1.Motorola LabsNetworks and Infrastructure ResearchUSA

Personalised recommendations