RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions

Berger, Lou; Gan, Der-Hwa; Swallow, George; Pan, Ping; Tommasi, Franco; Molendini, S.

doi:10.17487/rfc2961

Cited by 92 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There can be significant benefits for signaling applications if state-changing messages are delivered reliably (as introduced in [13] for RSVP; see also the more general analysis of [14]). This does not change any assumption about the use of soft-state by NSLPs to manage signaling application state, and it leaves the responsibility for detecting and recovering from application layer error conditions in the NSLP.…”

Section: How the Ntlp Determines And Accommodates Maximum Transmissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework

Hancock¹,

Karagiannis²,

Loughney³

et al. 2005

184

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: How the Ntlp Determines And Accommodates Maximum Transmissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework

Hancock¹,

Karagiannis²,

Loughney³

et al. 2005

184

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To provide reliability for signaling message delivery, the work in [2], [15] introduces hop-by-hop retransmission to RSVP, while the work in [20] reuses existing reliable transport protocols. Ji et al [10], [11] systematically classify soft state and hard state signaling protocols into five "soft" level classes.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

End-to-end versus hop-by-hop state refresh in soft state signaling protocols

He¹,

Fu²,

Tang³

et al. 2009

IEEE Commun. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-To ensure state synchronization of signalling operations, many signaling protocol designs choose to establish "soft" state that expires if it is not refreshed. The approaches of refreshing state in multi-hop signaling system can be classified as either end-to-end (E2E) or hop-by-hop (HbH). Although both state refresh approaches have been widely used in practical signaling protocols, the design tradeoffs between state synchronization and signaling cost have not yet been fully investigated. In this paper, we investigate this issue from the perspectives of state refresh and state removal. We propose simple but effective Markov chain models for both approaches and obtain closed-form solutions which depict the state refresh performance in terms of state consistency and refresh message rate, as well as the state removal performance in terms of state removal delay. Simulations verify the analytical models. It is observed that the HbH approach yields much better state synchronization at the cost of higher signaling cost than the E2E approach. While the state refresh performance can be improved by increasing the values of state refresh and timeout timers, the state removal delay increases largely for both E2E and HbH approaches. The analysis here shed lights on the design of signaling protocols and the configuration of the timers to adapt to changing network conditions.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, a bundling mechanism for the refresh messages is defined in [12], with the purpose of reducing signaling load. To do so, a single refresh message serves as a keepalive message for several LSPs.…”

Section: A Simulation Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Let P (D Ni→Ni+1 > t) refer to the probability that the flow lifetime is longer than t, assuming that the distance between nodes N i and N i+1 is one-hop. Such probability is given by (12). Then, for a multi-hop flow, the flow survival time probability P (D multihop > t) is given by…”

Section: ) Derivation Of the Flow Survival Probability For A Given Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On capacity planning for the GMPLS network control plane

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta es la versión de autor de la comunicación de congreso publicada en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: AbstractThis paper presents capacity planning rules for the control plane of all-optical networks featuring GMPLS and RSVP-TE as a connection setup protocol. As per RSVP standard, a refresh message mechanism is incorporated to RSVP such that the state is periodically refreshed on a link per link basis. We provide analytical expressions for the bandwidth and buffer sizes to be provided such that no flows are torn down due to lack of refresh messages. Our findings show that small buffers (several KBytes) suffice to sustain the signaling load for as much as 400 RSVP flows per link, with the simplest RSVP refresh mechanism (neither using link bundling nor acknowledgments). On the other hand, we also find the packet drop probability per link for a given network topology for the case that the flow survival probability is larger than a given threshold. We provide numerical examples based on the COST 239 european network topology and real RSVP traffic traces from early-commercial switching equipment.

show abstract

RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions

Cited by 92 publications

References 1 publication

Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework

Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework

End-to-end versus hop-by-hop state refresh in soft state signaling protocols

On capacity planning for the GMPLS network control plane

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About