RE: [PCN] traffic matrix scenario

"Geib, Ruediger" <> Wed, 31 October 2007 10:59 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1InBI2-00085d-O2; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:59:14 -0400
Received: from pcn by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1InBI0-0007xP-77 for; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:59:12 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1InBHz-0007uh-P5 for; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:59:11 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1InBHn-0006vY-Ee for; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:59:00 -0400
Received: from by with ESMTP; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:58:48 +0100
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:58:48 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [PCN] traffic matrix scenario
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:58:47 +0100
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [PCN] traffic matrix scenario
Thread-Index: AcgblgBwA5JkK5klSC+Vpq47uI0BdgAEOZggAAERqLA=
From: "Geib, Ruediger" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Oct 2007 10:58:48.0265 (UTC) FILETIME=[0388D390:01C81BAD]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>


thanks, your text nicely explains things.

On the dimension of the time lag, I'm not favouring to dimension the lag
for a situation where just admitting the new flow results in
pre-congestion marking. This will result in a rather long lag. I'd
rather like to make sure, that if there's congestion already and another
flow is admitted, then there should be no new admission. That would
assume that with the first packets of the admitted flow, pre congestion
marked packets are received.

It may be useful to have separate timers:
- absolutely no pre congestion indication on ingress or egress
  * the lag is rather short or zero
- pre-congestion indicated on the ingress or egress, but 
  not for the lately admitted flow
  * the lag is somewhat bigger
- pre-congestion indicated (no matter which amount) for the 
  lately admitted flow
  * no new admission prior to a full PCN pre congestion 
    feedback cycle on that flows ingress/egress relation.




|-----Original Message-----
|From: []
|Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:37 AM
|Subject: RE: [PCN] traffic matrix scenario
|Lars, All 
|> But this only means that there is a *potential* for a problem.
|> Do you have an estimate on how likely it is that a sufficient 
|> number of new flows start transmitting over these empty 
|> aggregates at roughly the same time, such that they together 
|> can push the bottleneck straight into overload?
|We cannot really give any measure of likelihood.  In this deployment
|scenario, at least, we design our network so PCN almost never rejects
|calls unless the traffic matrix is highly anomalous.  Such 
|anomalies are
|inherently unpredictable.  For example, a scenario we 
|sometimes consider
|is an event which simultaneously destroys an exchange building and
|causes a surge of traffic to and from the affected exchange region
|consisting of emergency traffic mixed with concerned relatives calling
|up to see what has happened.  We cannot tell you how likely this
|scenario is.  But it is essential to us that PCN operates correctly in
|this scenario, regardless of the scenario's precise likelihood.
|So, what do we need to do to ensure that PCN does operate correctly in
|the presence of extreme anomalous events?  
|We have a few parameters to play with.  One is the margin between
|pre-congestion and actual congestion.  Another is provided by a cap on
|the rate of admitting new flows.
|What the statistics we gave before imply is that this rate 
|must be quite
|tightly capped, at least in the case of ingress-egress aggregates with
|no flows, because the size of the pulse of flows we admit before we get
|good feedback could be being multiplied across many other 
|ingresses, and
|together this chunk of admissions must be reliably limited to below our
|safety margin.  If the rate of admission is being capped on a per
|ingress basis, then the multiplication factor cannot reliably 
|be assumed
|to be much smaller than the total number of ingresses, 100 in our case.
|If the rate of admission is being capped on a per aggregate basis then
|our traffic matrix information suggests that we could have a situation
|where many aggregates (a few thousand) are all ramping up into the same
|bottleneck.  So the multiplication factor needs to be of that order.
|We can do the sums: given the safety margin, the time lag before
|feedback becomes reliable, and the multiplication factor we 
|can directly
|compute the maximum rate of admission per ingress and per aggregate.
|Alternatively, given a desirable minimum size for this maximum rate of
|admission we can compute the needed safety margin.
|What should we take to be the time lag before the feedback becomes
|reliable?  One component is the amount of time between 
|admission control
|decision and data actually reaching the ingress.  Can we assume this to
|be reliably bounded?  The other components are then propagation and
|queueing delay, alongside the time needed for the bottleneck queues to
|grow and the congestion estimates to grow.  Do we have good estimates
|for these times? 
|Ben Strulo
|PCN mailing list

PCN mailing list