Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [RPRWG] Scheduling



Based on the recent email discussion on scheduling, my following comments.
 
First, MAC-protocols on rings are required to coordinate access to the shared medium in a fair manner. If one omits this protocol, one easily can construct cases where some of the nodes are unable to transmit. Thus, the MAC will be a crucial part of the standard.
 
For ring-speeds of 1 Gbit/s and above, the shared media can only exploited by simultaneaous access to the medium by many nodes and by destination removal).
Here, there are only two mechanisms, either a slotted transmission structure (ATM) or buffer insertion to cope with variable packet lengths (IP). In case of a slotted structure, packets have to be segmented at the transmit nodes and reassembled at the receiver nodes. In a ring with n nodes, each receiver node should have n reassembly machines. With insertion buffers (transit buffers) complete IP packet can be handled, and this is today the preferred way. Any thoughts in direction of  802.5 and FDDI for medium access make no sense.
 
The insertion buffers are in the transmission path and therefore all decisions have to operate at full link speeds. Buffers and complicated scheduling as in Diffserv at 10 Gbit/s, or in future even above that bit rate, are doable but require a lot of silicon space. Thus, are costly. It should be the goal to create a standard that allows a small insertion buffer size and rather simple scheduling. Three classes of traffic on the ring, as already discussed in emails, would fit completely. This already means that three parallel insertion buffers must be handled at link speed. This parallel structure is required to allow for overtaking of packets between the three priority classes. The jitter of the lowest class becomes of course larger, but the delay bounds of the higher class traffics can be guaranteed, which is the most crucial factor in IP-telephony and IP-multimedia. Other QoS policies should be done above the MAC. Ring nodes should be considered as nodes that have shared transmission links to all other nodes. Once the packet is given to the MAC or clocked onto the transmission medium, there is no need for level-3, etc switching control.
 
Having a long history in the design and implementaion of multi-Gbit/s shared-medium rings, the buffers in the transit path operate for me, without any discussion, always in cut-through mode. Once on the medium, the packet should be delivered to the destination with minimal interference by the access traffic of the same class. I recently learned however that in contrast to my assumption, the Cisco SRP operates their transit buffers as store-and-foreward. Each packet is completely received in the transit buffer before forwarding. Performance will show the difference in end-to-end delay. I like to point out that end-to-end delay will become the most dominant performance measure in the very near future.The requirements of the carriers will change when IP-telephony and IP-MM becomes a commodity and carrier-grade service have to be guaranteed in a simular fashion as in circuit-switching. When considering only 2.5 Gbit/s and 10 Gbit/s SONET/SDH or 10 GbE the difference will not be very crucial. However, for rings in the lower bit-rate region in public access, campus, or in-building areas, providing a huge market, the difference might have an impact on a broad success of the standard. Scheduling between the insertion buffers and the transmit buffers can in the same way be done both in cut-through and store-and-foreward mode. In principle, rings with cut-through and store-and-forward nodes having the same buffer structure would work together. Even scheduling between buffers could be different. What has to be the same is the MAC fairness mechanism.
 
Best  regards
Harmen R. van As
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof.Dr. Harmen R. van As       Institute of Communication Networks
Head of Institute                      Vienna University of Technology
Tel  +43-1-58801-38800           Favoritenstrasse 9/388
Fax  +43-1-58801-38898          A-1040 Vienna, Austria
http://www.ikn.tuwien.ac.at      email: Harmen.R.van-As@xxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------