Traffic Engineering with AIMD in MPLS Networks
We consider the problem of allocating bandwidth to competing flows in an MPLS network, subject to constraints on fairness, efficiency, and administrative complexity. The aggregate traffic between a source and a destination, called a flow, is mapped to label switched paths (LSPs) across the network. Each flow is assigned a preferred (‘primary’) LSP, but traffic may be sent to other (‘secondary’) LSPs. Within this context, we define objectives for traffic engineering, such as fairness, efficiency, and preferred flow assignment to the primary LSP of a flow (‘Primary Path First’, PPF). We propose a distributed, feedback-based multipath routing algorithm that attempts to apply additive-increase and multiplicative-decrease (AIMD) to implement our traffic engineering objectives. The new algorithm is referred to as multipath-AIMD. We use ns-2 simulations to illustrate the fairness criteria and PPF property of our multipath-AIMD scheme in an MPLS network.
KeywordsCongestion Control Fair Share Pool Resource Rate Allocation Primary Path
- 1.ns-2 network simulator. http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/.
- 2.O. Aboul-Magd, L. Andersson, and P. Ashwood-Smith. Constraint-based LSP setup using LDP. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-05.txt, February 2001.
- 4.D. O. Awduche, A. Chiu, A. Elwalid, I. Widjaja, and X. Xiao. Overview and principles of Internet traffic engineering. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-principles-02.txt, November 2001.
- 7.A. Elwalid, C. Jin, S. Low, and I. Widjaja. MATE: MPLS adaptive traffic engineering. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2001, volume 3, pages 1300–1309, 2001.Google Scholar
- 8.D. O. Awduche et. al. RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP tunnels. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-09.txt, August 2001.
- 9.P. Hurley, J.-Y. Le Boudec, and P. Thiran. A note on the fairness of additive increase and multiplicative decrease. In Proceedings of ITC-16, Edinburgh, UK, June 1999.Google Scholar
- 10.V. Jacobson. Congestion avoidance and control. In Proceedings ofACMSigcomm’ 88, August, 1988, pages 314–329, 1988.Google Scholar
- 12.R. Jain and K. K. Ramakrishnan. Congestion avoidance in computer networks with a connectionless network layer: Concepts, goals and methodology. Proceedings of the Computer Networking Symposium; IEEE; Washington, DC, pages 134–143, 1988.Google Scholar
- 13.R. Jain, K. K. Ramakrishnan, and D.-M. Chiu. Congestion avoidance in computer networks with a connectionless network layer. December 1988. Digital Equipment Corporation, Technical Report DEC-TR-506.Google Scholar
- 16.S. Kunniyur and R. Srikant. End-to-end congestion control: Utility functions, random losses and ECN marks. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2000, pages 1323–1332, March 2000.Google Scholar
- 17.K.-W. Lee, T.-E. Kim, and V. Bharghavan. A comparison of end-to-end congestion control algorithms: the case of AIMD and AIPD. In Proceedings of IEEE Globecom 2001, San Antonio, Texas, November 2001.Google Scholar
- 18.L. Massoulie and J. Roberts. Bandwidth sharing: Objectives and algorithms. In Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 1999, New York, March 1999.Google Scholar
- 20.E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, and R. Callon. Multiprotocol label switching architecture. draft-ietf-mpls-arch-07.txt, ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3031.txt, January 2001.
- 21.M. Vojnovic, J.-Y. Le Boudec, and C. Boutremans. Global fairness of additive-increase and multiplicative-decrease with heterogeneous round-trip times. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2000, volume 3, pages 1303–1312, 2000.Google Scholar