1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
|
.. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
==========================================
High Priority Traffic Path
==========================================
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/ovsnfv/OVSFV+Requirement+-+High+Priority+Traffic+Path
Problem description
===================
A network design may need to adequately accommodate multiple classes of traffic, each
class requiring different levels of service in critical network elements.
As a concrete example, a network element managed by a service provider may be
handling voice and elastic data traffic. Voice traffic requires that the end-to-end
latency and jitter is bounded to some numerical limit (in msec) accuracy in order to ensure
sufficient quality-of-service (QoS) for the participants in the voice call.
Elastic data traffic does not impose the same demanding requirements on the network
(there will be essentially no requirement on jitter. For example, when downloading a
large file across the Internet, although the bandwidth requirements may be high there
is usually no requirement that the file arrives within a bounded time interval.
Depending on the scheduling algorithms running on the network element,
frames belonging to the data traffic may get transmitted before frames
belonging to the voice traffic introducing unwanted latency or jitter.
Therefore, in order to ensure deterministic latency and jitter characteristics
end-to-end, each network element through which the voice traffic traverses
must ensure that voice traffic is handled deterministically.
Hardware switches have typically been designed to ensure certain classes
of traffic can be scheduled ahead of other classes and are also
over-provisioned which further ensures deterministic behavior when
handling high priority traffic. However, software switches (which includes
virtual switches such as Open vSwitch) may require modification in order
to achieve this deterministic behavior.
Use Cases
---------
1. Program classes of service
The End User specifies a number of classes of service. Each class of service
will be represented by the value of a particular field in a frame. The class
of service determines the priority treatment which flows in the class will
receive, while maintaining a relative level of priority for other classes and
a default level of treatment for the lowest priority class of service. As
such, each class of service will be associated with a priority. The End User
will associate classes of service and priorities to ingress ports with the
expectation that frames that arrive on these ingress ports will get
scheduled following the specified priorities.
Note: Priority treatment of the classes of service cannot cause any one of
the classes (even the default class) from being transferred at all. In other
words, a strict priority treatment would likely not be successful for serving
all classes eventually, and this is a key consideration.
2. Forward high priority network traffic
A remote network element sends traffic to Open vSwitch. The remote network
element, indicates the class of service to which this flow of traffic belongs
to by modifying a pre-determined but arbitrary field in the frame as specified
in Use Case 1. Some examples include the Differentiated Services Code Point
(DSCP) in an IP packet or the Priority Code Point (PCP) in an Ethernet frame.
The relative priority treatment that frames get processed by Open vSwitch can be guaranteed by the
values populated in these fields when the fields are different. If the fields
are the same, ordering is not deterministic.
For example: Packet A is sent with a DSCP value of 0 and packet B is sent
with a value of 46; 0 has a lower priority than 46. Packet A arrives
before packet B. If Open vSwitch has been configured as such, Packet
B will be transmitted before Packet A.
Proposed change
===============
TBD
Alternatives
------------
TBD
OVSDB schema impact
-------------------
TBD
User interface impact
---------------------
TBD
Security impact
---------------
TBD
Other end user impact
---------------------
TBD
Performance Impact
------------------
TBD
Other deployer impact
---------------------
TBD
Developer impact
----------------
TBD
Implementation
==============
Assignee(s)
-----------
Who is leading the writing of the code? Or is this a blueprint where you're
throwing it out there to see who picks it up?
If more than one person is working on the implementation, please designate the
primary author and contact.
Primary assignee:
<email address>
Other contributors:
<email address>
Work Items
----------
TBD
Dependencies
============
TBD
Testing
=======
In order to test how effectively the virtual switch handles high priority traffic
types, the following scheme is suggested.::
+---------------------------+ Ingress Traffic Parameters
| | +-------------------------------------------+
| |
| | Packet Size: The size of the Ethernet frames
| |
| | Tmax: RFC2544 Max. Throughput for traffic of
| PHY0 <-------+ "Packet Size"
| |
| | Total Offered Rate: The offered rate of both
| | traffic classes combined expressed as a % of
| | Tmax
| |
| | Ingress Rates are expressed as a percentage
| | of Total Offered Rate.
| |
| | Class A:
| OVS | Ethernet PCP = 0 (Background)
| (BR0) | Ingress Rate : rate_ingress_a(n) Mfps
| |
| | Class B:
| | Ethernet PCP = 7 (Highest)
| | Ingress Rate : rate_ingress_b(n) Mfps
| |
| | Egress Traffic Measurements
| | +-------------------------------------------+
| | Class A:
| | Egress Throughput : rate_egress_a(n) Mfps
| | Egress Latency : max_lat_egrees_a(n) ms
| | Egress Jitter : max_jit_egress_a(n) ms
| PHY1 +------->
| | Class B:
| | Egress Throughput : rate_egress_b(n) Mfps
| | Egress Latency : max_lat_egrees_b(n) ms
+---------------------------+ Egress Jitter : max_jit_egress_b(n) ms
Open vSwitch is configured to forward traffic between two ports agnostic to the
traffic type. For example, using the following command:
ovs-ofctl add-flow br0 in_port=0,actions=output:1
The test will be carried out with the functionality to enable high-priority
traffic enabled and disabled in order to guage the change in performance for
both cases.
Two classes of traffic will be generated by a traffic generator. In the example
above, the classes are differentiated using the Ethernet PCP field. However,
another means for differentiating traffic could be used, depending the
prioritization scheme that is developed.
Tests should be performed for each combination of:
* Packet Sizes in (64, 512)
* Total Offered Rate in (80, 120, 150)
* rate_ingress_b(n) / rate_ingress_a(n) in (0.1, 0.2, 0.5)
For each set, the following metrics should be collected for each traffic
class over a specified time period:
Egress Throughput (Mfps)
Maximum Egress Latency (ms)
Maximum Egress Jitter (ms)
Documentation Impact
====================
TBD
References
==========
Please add any useful references here. You are not required to have any
reference. Moreover, this specification should still make sense when your
references are unavailable. Examples of what you could include are:
* Links to mailing list or IRC discussions
- http://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2015-December/007193.html
- http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-ovsnfv/2016/opnfv-ovsnfv.2016-03-07-13.01.html
* Links to relevant research, if appropriate
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/download/attachments/5046510/qos_mechanisms.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1459187636000&api=v2
* Related specifications as appropriate
* Anything else you feel it is worthwhile to refer to
History
=======
Optional section intended to be used each time the spec
is updated to describe new design, API or any database schema
updated. Useful to let reader understand what's happened along the
time.
.. list-table:: Revisions
:header-rows: 1
* - Release Name
- Description
* - Colorado
- Introduced
|
