Toshiba's Flow Attribute Notification Protocol (FANP) Specification

Recently there has been much interest in combining the speed of layer-2 switching with the features of layer-3 routing. This has been prompted by numerous proposals, including: IP Switching [1], Tag Switching [2], ARIS [3], CSR [4], and IP over ATM [5]. In this paper, we study IP Switching and evaluate the performance claims made by Newman et al in [1] and [6]. In particular, using ten network traces, we study how well IP Switching performs with traffic found in campus, corporate, and Internet Service Provider (ISP) environments. Our main finding is that IP Switching will lead to a high proportion of datagrams that are switched; over 75% in all of the environments we studied. We also investigate the effects that different flow classifiers and various timer values have on performance, and note that some choices can result in a large VC space requirement. Finally, we present recommendations for the flow classifier and timer values, as a function of the VC space of the switch and the network environment being served. What is IP Switching?The Internet is overwhelmed with traffic, with user demand for bandwidth well in excess of supply. This should come as no great surprise -the number of users of the Internet has grown exponentially for ten straight years, with each user adding more demand to the network. Over time, each user's traffic tends to increase, adding further to the demand. And at the same time, a larger proportion of traffic traverses multiple domains, swamping campus backbones, corporate intranets, and the core of the Internet. In response to the demand, network equipment vendors and service providers have developed and deployed faster and faster routers. Yet demand for bandwidth far outstrips the current link and switching capacity of the Internet.The performance of network routers is usually limited by two main tasks: (1) Examining the destination address of incoming datagrams, indexing into a routing table to determine the next hop, and (2) copying incoming datagrams to their outgoing interface. The routing lookup is not straightforward; the router must find the longest prefix match over a space of approximately 2 31 possible addresses. It is unusual for a router today to perform more than 100,000 address lookups per second. Perhaps surprisingly, the performance of most current routers is limited by their ability to copy data between interfaces. This is because datagrams frequently traverse shared busses multiple times before reaching their outgoing interface.A variety of techniques have been proposed to accelerate routing lookups [7], and replace shared busses with switched back-Alternative techniques have been proposed that replace longest prefix routing lookups with simple exact matching, and use layer-2 switches to perform fast data copying. We generically call these techniques "label swapping"; they include IP Switching , IP Switching has received a lot of attention. The CSR proposal is similar to IP Switching in many respects, so our findings generally apply to the CSR architecture. On t...

show abstract

“…The "# of flows" column shows the number of flows of type 1 and flows of type 2. Finally, the "Average Flow Duration" columns give the average lifetime of TCP flows, 4 The UC Berkeley trace is currently unavailable.…”

Section: Experimental Setup / Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has been prompted by numerous proposals, including: IP Switching [1], Tag Switching [2], ARIS [3], CSR [4], and IP over ATM [5]. In this paper, we study IP Switching and evaluate the performance claims made by Newman et al in [1] and [6].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A simulation study of IP switching

LinSteven

¹

,

McKeownNick

²

1997

SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently there has been much interest in combining the speed of layer-2 switching with the features of layer-3 routing. This has been prompted by numerous proposals, including: IP Switching [1], Tag Switching [2], ARIS [3], CSR [4], and IP over ATM [5]. In this paper, we study IP Switching and evaluate the performance claims made by Newman et al in [1] and [6]. In particular, using ten network traces, we study how well IP Switching performs with traffic found in campus, corporate, and Internet Service Provider (ISP) environments. Our main finding is that IP Switching will lead to a high proportion of datagrams that are switched; over 75% in all of the environments we studied. We also investigate the effects that different flow classifiers and various timer values have on performance, and note that some choices can result in a large VC space requirement. Finally, we present recommendations for the flow classifier and timer values, as a function of the VC space of the switch and the network environment being served. What is IP Switching?The Internet is overwhelmed with traffic, with user demand for bandwidth well in excess of supply. This should come as no great surprise -the number of users of the Internet has grown exponentially for ten straight years, with each user adding more demand to the network. Over time, each user's traffic tends to increase, adding further to the demand. And at the same time, a larger proportion of traffic traverses multiple domains, swamping campus backbones, corporate intranets, and the core of the Internet. In response to the demand, network equipment vendors and service providers have developed and deployed faster and faster routers. Yet demand for bandwidth far outstrips the current link and switching capacity of the Internet.The performance of network routers is usually limited by two main tasks: (1) Examining the destination address of incoming datagrams, indexing into a routing table to determine the next hop, and (2) copying incoming datagrams to their outgoing interface. The routing lookup is not straightforward; the router must find the longest prefix match over a space of approximately 2 31 possible addresses. It is unusual for a router today to perform more than 100,000 address lookups per second. Perhaps surprisingly, the performance of most current routers is limited by their ability to copy data between interfaces. This is because datagrams frequently traverse shared busses multiple times before reaching their outgoing interface.A variety of techniques have been proposed to accelerate routing lookups [7], and replace shared busses with switched back-Alternative techniques have been proposed that replace longest prefix routing lookups with simple exact matching, and use layer-2 switches to perform fast data copying. We generically call these techniques "label swapping"; they include IP Switching , IP Switching has received a lot of attention. The CSR proposal is similar to IP Switching in many respects, so our findings generally apply to the CSR architecture. On t...

show abstract

“…[3], [4], IP switch [1], [2], and tag switch router (TSR) [5], [6], have been proposed with their own protocol designs. The protocol to establish the mappings between a packet stream and a corresponding label is generally called a label-distribution protocol (LDP), discussed in the Internet engineering task force (IETF) multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) working group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One is specified in the ipsilon flow management protocol (IFMP) [2] and the flow attribute notification protocol (FANP) [4], where the LSR uses the host-pair packet stream as the granularity of the packet-stream definition and applies trafficdriven label mapping. Lin and Mckeown [10] have evaluated the number of required labels using actual traffic traces on the Internet and show that a large number of labels is required on the Internet backbone with this label-mapping policy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<title>Flow-aggregated traffic-driven label mapping in label-switching networks</title>

Nagami

¹

,

Katsube

²

,

Esaki

³

et al. 1998

SPIE Proceedings

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Label-switching technology enables high performance and flexible layer-3 packet forwarding based on the fixed-length label information that is mapped to the layer-3 packet stream. A label-switching router (LSR) forwards layer-3 packets based on their layer-3 address information or their label information that is mapped to the layer-3 address information. Two label-mapping policies have been proposed. One is trafficdriven mapping, where the label is mapped for a layer-3 packet stream of each host-pair according to the actual packet arrival. The other is topology-driven mapping, where the label is mapped in advance for a layer-3 packet stream toward the same destination network, regardless of actual packet arrival to the LSR. This paper evaluates the required number of labels under each of these two label-mapping policies using real backbone traffic traces. The evaluation shows that both label-mapping policies require a large number of labels. In order to reduce the required number of labels, we propose a label-mapping policy that is a combination of the two label-mapping policies above. This is traffic-driven label mapping for the packet stream toward the same destination network. The evaluation shows that the proposed label-mapping policy requires only about one-tenth as many labels as the traffic-driven label mapping for the host-pair packet stream and the topology-driven label mapping for the destination-network packet stream.

show abstract

Toshiba's Flow Attribute Notification Protocol (FANP) Specification

Cited by 26 publications

References 2 publications

A simulation study of IP switching

A simulation study of IP switching

A simulation study of IP switching

<title>Flow-aggregated traffic-driven label mapping in label-switching networks</title>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About