QoS Service Level Agreement (SLA) for Tactical/Deployed Scenario
-
Upload
dara-holcomb -
Category
Documents
-
view
36 -
download
0
description
Transcript of QoS Service Level Agreement (SLA) for Tactical/Deployed Scenario
QoS Service Level Agreement (SLA)for Tactical/Deployed Scenario
Deborah GoldsmithDeborah GoldsmithMITRE Corporation MITRE Corporation
(619)758-7829(619)[email protected]@mitre.org
2
Outline
• Problem Statement• General Requirements • Scenario Description• Tactical /Deployed SLA• Data Classification and Marking• Issues• Questions
3
Problem Statement
• Meet QoS Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) for the Tactical/Deployed platform across the End-to-End Circuit
4
General Requirements*
• Applications will converge to a common infrastructure (most likely Layer 3 IP)– Voice– Video– Datagram– Control/Management
• Applications MUST work end-to-end across wide diversity of LANs, MANs, WANs
• System MUST allow user to indicate mission-based priority and support priority handling to resolve end-to-end bottlenecks
• System MUST meet stringent IA requirements
* DISA, 5-29-02
5
Scenario Description:The End-to-End Circuit*
FIXED TACTICAL
CAMP/POST/STATION WIDE AREA NETWORK TACTICAL/DEPLOYED
END-TO-END DISN
• Solution must apply to ALL elements of the Defense Information Systems Network (C/P/S, WAN, TACTICAL)– F-F, F-T, T-T
• Multiple domains– Traffic in the WAN traverses many network domains that may be
considered analogous to external carrier networks with their own QoS/SLA’s
* DISA, 5-29-02
6
Scenario Description:The Tactical/Deployed Segment• Tactical \deployed communications use multiple RF gateways• RF gateways represent bottlenecks due to bandwidth constraints
Point-to-Point Link
Ship 3)
Ship 1
Land Base 1
LOS LINK
Aircraft 1
LOSIP Net 2
LOSIP Net 1 LOS
IP Net 3
Ship 5
Vehicle 1
Foot Soldier
Ship 2
Ship 4
Land Base 1
Land Base 2
Land Base 1
Land Base 1
Land Base 1
Vehicle 1
Aircraft 2
7
Scenario Description:The Tactical Platform & the RF Gateway
enclave
enclave
enclave
VPN
VPN
WANGW
WANGW
LAN
LAN
LAN
RFGW
LOSSLASLA
8
Tactical/Deployed SLA
• Minimum bandwidth guarantees for specified data types or sources
• B/W, latency, jitter guarantees for VoIP and packet VTC• Latency guarantees for tactical messages• No starvation for Best Effort (BE) (aggregate)
9
Data Classification and Marking
10
Application Flow Categories*
QoS Application Flow Type Application Example Flow
Continuous/Interactive Voice over IP, VTC TCP Setup and UDP Flow
Streaming Video Imagery,
Multicasting
TCP Setup and UDP Flow
Block Transfer Telnet, http TCP Flow
Batch Transfer E-mail, ftp TCP Flow
Transactional Client / Server, e-commerce TCP Flow
Other SNMP, RIP, OSFP, BGP, TFTP, DHCP, ICMP
Non-TCP
Each category has QoS Performance Metrics
* DISA, 5-29-02
11
Marking RFC’s
12
Sample DSCP Marking by Application Categories
• Marking by priority and latency requirements
Mapping of Applications DSCP # AF ClassAll SMTP, best-effort (hrs.) 0 BE(min.) FTP 14 AF13(min.) DB repl. 12 AF12(sec.) HTTP/HTTPS, DNS 10 AF11(sec.) Telnet/Chat 22 AF23(msec) Tactical App Low Priority 20 AF22(msec) Tactical App Hi Priority 18 AF21Future Tactical Apps 24-31 AF31- AF33Video, all UDP 34 AF41Reserved Apps (poss. future) 34 AF41VOIP Control 41VOIP 46 EF
13
Issues
• Mobility
• Ad-hoc Networks
• Link outage and degradation
14
Questions
– Can DiffServ (DSCP’s) be the basis of a near-term implementation plan to implement end-to-end QoS for the tactical/deployed scenario?
• Bandwidth Reservation for some applications• B/W, Latency and Jitter guarantees for VOIP, VTC• Latency guarantees for tactical messages• Priority and precedence• No starvation for Best effort
– What are the end-to-end QoS mechanisms to implement a long-term implementation plan?
• Dynamic QoS based on policy• Admission control• QoS-aware applications signaling the network• Reroute with QoS on link failure /degradation• Mobility• Performance monitoring and control
Yes No