P. 1
An Agent Based Approach for End-to-End QoS Guarantees in Multimedia IP networks

An Agent Based Approach for End-to-End QoS Guarantees in Multimedia IP networks

|Views: 36|Likes:
Published by ijcsis
Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees are important, if the network capacity is insufficient, particularly for real-time streaming multimedia applications such as voice over IP. Differentiated Services or DiffServ are the services of the original internet that prioritizes flows according to their service class and
provides much better bandwidth utilization. Predicting the end-to-end behavior and acquiring the method by which individual routers deal with the type of service field is difficult and fairly appropriate. Moreover it becomes more difficult if a packet crosses two or more DiffServ clouds, before reaching its destination. In this paper, we propose a QoS mapping framework to achieve scalability and end-to-end accuracy in QoS, using a Policy Agent (PA) in every DiffServ domain. This agent performs admission control decisions depending on a policy database. It configures the ingress and egress routers to perform traffic policing and conditioning jobs. Moreover, it constructs the shortest path between a source and destination satisfying the QoS constraints Bandwidth and Delay. By simulation results, we show that our proposed approach attains high throughput with reduced packet loss when compared with the normal DiffServ architecture.
Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees are important, if the network capacity is insufficient, particularly for real-time streaming multimedia applications such as voice over IP. Differentiated Services or DiffServ are the services of the original internet that prioritizes flows according to their service class and
provides much better bandwidth utilization. Predicting the end-to-end behavior and acquiring the method by which individual routers deal with the type of service field is difficult and fairly appropriate. Moreover it becomes more difficult if a packet crosses two or more DiffServ clouds, before reaching its destination. In this paper, we propose a QoS mapping framework to achieve scalability and end-to-end accuracy in QoS, using a Policy Agent (PA) in every DiffServ domain. This agent performs admission control decisions depending on a policy database. It configures the ingress and egress routers to perform traffic policing and conditioning jobs. Moreover, it constructs the shortest path between a source and destination satisfying the QoS constraints Bandwidth and Delay. By simulation results, we show that our proposed approach attains high throughput with reduced packet loss when compared with the normal DiffServ architecture.

More info:

Published by: ijcsis on Aug 13, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/25/2012

pdf

text

original

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No.

4, July 2010

An Agent Based Approach for End-to-End QoS Guarantees in Multimedia IP networks
A.Veerabhadra Reddy
Senior Lecturer, Department of ECE Government Polytechnic for Women, Hindupur veerabhadrareddyphd@gmail.com

Dr. D. Sreenivasa Rao
Professor, Department of ECE JNTU CE, Hyderabad dsraoece@yahoo.co.uk

Abstract— Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees are important, if the network capacity is insufficient, particularly for real-time streaming multimedia applications such as voice over IP. Differentiated Services or DiffServ are the services of the original internet that prioritizes flows according to their service class and provides much better bandwidth utilization. Predicting the endto-end behavior and acquiring the method by which individual routers deal with the type of service field is difficult and fairly appropriate. Moreover it becomes more difficult if a pakcet crosses two or more DiffServ clouds, before reaching its destination. In this paper, we propose a QoS mapping framework to achieve scalability and end-to-end accuracy in QoS, using a Policy Agent (PA) in every DiffServ domain. This agent performs admission control decisions depending on a policy database. It configures the ingress and egress routers to perform traffic policing and conditioning jobs. Moreover, it constructs the shortest path between a source and destination satisfying the QoS constraints Bandwidth and Delay. By simulation results, we show that our proposed approach attains high throughput with reduced packet loss when compared with the normal DiffServ architecture. Keywords-Quality of Service (QoS); Policy Agent (PA); DiffServ domain; QoS Route Selection; Packet loss, Throughput.

multimedia applications such as voice over IP. This is because it often requies the fixed bit rate and they are delay sensitive and also in networks where the capacity is a limited resource (Eg. Cellular data commumnication). QoS mechanisms are not required in the absence of network congestion [1]. QoS is the most important implementation consideration within a converged network. It is a networking term that specifies a guaranteed network data performance level. Practically, QoS is a mechanism to ensure that audio and video data pass through the network with minimum delay. IP voice or videoconferencing calls will be unreliable, inconsistent, and often unsatisfactory, if network QoS is poor [2]. C. Two solutions for Quality of Service guarantees (i) Differentiated services (DiffServ) Differentiated Services or DiffServ are the services of the original internet which maintains stateless property. Differentiated Services is a computer networking architecture which specifies a scalable,simple, and coarse-grained mechanism for classifying, managing network traffic and providing QoS guarantees on modern IP networks [1]. The basic of this architecture is to provide network resources between the traffic aggregates. DiffServ prioritizes flows according to their service class and provides much better bandwidth utilization [3] (ii) Integrated services Services that require stateful architecture of the internet are known as Integrated Services or IntServ [1]. This architecture specifies the elements to guarantee QoS on the networks and it is the basis of the reservation of network resources between the individual flows [3]. The main idea of the service is the resource reservation and admission control. [4]. Deterministic bandwidth and end-to-end delays to the individual flows can be offered by the IntServ. Moreover, it depends upon the admission control by placing strict resource reservations which guarantees the worst case situation [3]. The following are the categories of services in this architecture: o o Guaranteed Services Controlled-load Service

I. INTRODUCTION A. IP Networks A computer network made of devices that support the Internet Protocol is an IP network [1]. In Internet Protocol Suite, IP is the primary protocol in Internet Layer which has the task of delivering the packets from source to destination mainly based on their address. B. Quality of Service (QoS) in IP When compared with the achieved service quality, the traffic engineering term quality of service (QoS) will refer to the resource reservation control mechanisms in both the fields of computer networking and other packet-switched telecommunication networks.The abiltiy of the QoS is to provide different priorties to different applications, users or data flows or guaranteeing a certain level of performance to a data flow. For example, it guarantees required bit rate, delay, jitter, packet dropping probability and/or bit error rate. Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees are important, if the network capacity is insufficient, particularly for real-time streaming

Guaranteed Services: It is estimated as the strongest allowable service in the environment of the internet so far. It has the ability to provide per flow bandwidth and delay

188

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

guarantees and it can assure that the packets will arrive within a selected delivery time [1]. Controlled-load Service: It allows the services poorly. It supports the applications which are highly sensitive to congested networks such as real time applications and these applications must tolerate small amounts of loss and delay. If an application uses this service, the performance will not be affected even when the network load is increased. The traffic will be provided with service similar to normal traffic in a network under light condition [1]. D. Problems or Challenges of QoS Many things can happen to packets as they travel from origin to destination, resulting in the following problems as seen from the point of view of the sender and receiver: When the packets travel from the source to destination, it experiences the following problems as seen from the point of view fo the sender and the receiver. Dropped Packets: The routers may fail to deliver (drop) some packets when they arrive, if the buffers of the dropped packets are already full. Dependng on the state of the network, some of the packets or none or all the packets might be dropped. Thus it is not possible to forecast the packets. Delay: For a packet it may take a long time to reach its destination, because it gets held up in long queues, or takes a indirect route to avoid congestion. Excessive delay can render an application such as VoIP or online gaming unusable, in some cases. Jitter: Packets may reach the destination with different delays from the source. A packet’s delay varies with its position in the queues of the routers along the path between source and destination.This position can vary and thus it cannot be predicted. This variation in delay is known as jitter [1]. Out-of-order Delivery: When a group of packets are routed, then different packets may take different route. Each of the packets results in different delay because the order of the packets are changed from the source to the destination. Special additional protocols are required to rearrange the out-of-order packets. Error: When packets are transmitted along a route, it may be misdirected or combined together or corrupted. The receiver have to detect this and the request the sender to resend packets [1]. E. Problems in Differentiated and Integrated Services Predicting the end-to-end behavior and acquiring the method by which individual routers deal with the type of service field is difficult and fairly appropriate. Moreover it becomes more difficult if a pakcet crosses two or more DiffServ clouds, before reaching its destination. Simple over-provisioning is an inefficient solution for the internet traffic which is highly bursty. If the network is dimensioned to carry all traffic with traffic management, it will cost an order of magnitude more than a network

dimensioned to carry the same traffic. The traffic management is used to prevent the collapse during the peaks. Measuring the peak load is not possible. Since the TCP protocol requests more bandwidth as the loss rate decreases, it is not possible to measure the links to avoid end-to-end loss altogether, when sending a large file. On the other hand, increasing the capacity of one link causes loss on a different link. By dropping the packets which are expended in carrying these packets until now through the network, the resources will be wasted. The bandwidth consumption at the congestion point and in the network is caused by retransmitting this traffic in many cases. The packets must be discarded as close to the edge of the network as possible, while Diffserv is often implemented throughout a network to minimize this waste. The problem with IntServ is that many states must be stored in each router. It is difficult to keep the path of all the reservations because it works on the small scale. Thus the architrecture is not much familiar [1]. In this paper, we propose a QoS mapping framework to achieve scalability and end-to-end accuracy in QoS, using a Policy Agent (PA) in every DiffServ domain. This agent performs admission control decisions depending on a policy database. II. RELATED WORK Kazi Khaled Al-Zahid et al [5], have presented a strategy for ETE QoS management in IP networks based on the use of programmable software agents. They have proposed a QoSbased routing architecture to serve multi-constrain ETE high priority applications. According to their proposal, the users can be electronically specify their QoS requirement from the host application based on their preference. Although, their proposed system has some performance limitations, but as a whole it is flexible, because the routing functionality is completely done by the agents which works as complements with the existing technology. Sergio Gonzalez-Valenzuala et al [6] have investigated an improvement by developing algorithms for determining the optimal multipoint-to-point (mp2p) routes through the use of mobile software agents. They have presented an mp2p routing scheme using a mobile intelligent agent system, called WAVES. The agents work in a highly distributed and parallel manner, cooperating to determine optimal routes in an mp2p connection scenario. This work aims at closing the gap between the theoretical routing research based on mobile agents, and practical routing requirements for real world networks that are likely to be deployed during the forthcoming years. Yao-Nan Lien et al [7] have stated briefly an approach for the problem of QoS budget allocation which is deliberated in optimization for increasing resource usage efficiency. The end-to-end QoS controller in QoS coordination layer has the capability of global resource planning. It suggests that an endto-end QoS controller will plan all resource provisions according to the traffic demands, and all the resource

189

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

allocation policy will be in accord with the planning. Their framework with simulation study demonstrates that it can indeed substantially increase the total number of network paths under constraints of end-to-end QoS requirements. Daniel Schlosser et al [8] have proposed a simple interface as an abstraction of a network service based on the service oriented architecture approach. The approach considers QoS as the network functionality the user is mainly interested in and includes charging. They have shown how QoS guarantees for several parts of one connection can be consolidated into a QoS description for the complete service. Moreover, they have discussed options to measure the QoS and presented measurements exposing the quality of an available active measurement tool, Cisco IP SLA. Lynda Zitoune et al [9] have presented a reactive control policy which adapts the source bit rate to the reserved resources in order to ensure performance guarantees for multimedia applications. Their proposed method called flatness based trajectory tracking deals with drastic traffic flow rate changes and limits the traffic in order to respect the time constraints. They have showed the contribution of the reactive control and the dynamic regulation using purely control theoretic approaches which stabilize the network and avoid undesirable oscillations for the transmission of such critical flows. By their work they have presented a performance analysis for such rate control mechanism, and illustrate its feasibility through its implementation on MPLS-TE control plane of SSFnet/Glass simulator. Rick Whitner et al [10] have examined the issue of matching active measurements to the network’s QoS configuration when monitoring a QoS-enabled IP network. Initially, they have illustrated the issue using common active measurement techniques. Then, they have examined approaches to matching active measurements to the network’s QoS configuration. Finally, they presented their experiences in prototyping one approach. III. NETWORK MODEL We assume that a communication network can be modeled using a graph G = (V , E ) where V is the set of nodes which could be routers, servers or switches and E represents the set of edges or links of the network. For any consecutive nodes a, b, the link l ab can be expressed for different parameters as:

B p = MIN{Bl | l ∈ P}
Dp =

(1) (2) (3)

∑Dl + ∑Dn
l∈P n∈P
n∈P

Cp =

∑Cl + ∑Cn
l∈P

Where, P is the path from source s to the destination d .

B p is the bandwidth of the path P D p is the delay of the path P C p is the cost of the path P
The problem is to find a path between s to d , such that it would satisfy all QoS constraints from source to destination. The above constraints can be categorized in two groups: link constraints and path constraints. Path constrains again consist of two classes: additive and multiplicative. Serving application that requires both of these constraints simultaneously is yet an unsolved problem. IV. PROPOSED AGENT BASED APPROACH A. Design Overview In this work, we propose a QoS mapping framework for both user and administrative policy, qualitative and quantitative QoS constraints over the internet’s DiffServ domain. We consider the Policy Agent (PA) that depends on the local state information to satisfy the end user and do not consider any central mechanisms such as bandwidth broker or adaptive bandwidth scheme. Thus in our approach, according to the service and the requirement of the end user, multi constraint MQoS is used for QoS mapping requested in different degrees by user applications. By assigning each packet with an appropriate QoS level, the QoS control takes place. In order to manage traffic according to the traffic conditioning agreement specified in the service level agreement (SLA), the application layer is responsible for producing the MQoS and sending it to the ingress of a DiffServ domain. The PA dynamically configured the necessary interface based on the requested traffic’s source and destination information. Thus the traffic which is marked as the high priority will get the opportunity while the BE traffic is considered as low priority. The process is repeated for each node along the destination, if the PA satisfies the requested MQoS. Otherwise, a negative notification is sent to the source that current network is unable to meet the requested QoS constraints. B. QoS Moniroting by the PA
TABLE I. QOS RESOURCE MATRIX

H l = H ab Cl = C ab Dl = Dab Bl = Bab Where H l , is the hops, Cl is the cost, Dl is the delay and Bl is the bandwidth of the link l , where the link l ∈ E is directly connected by a ∈ V and b ∈ V . These parameters may occur in either nodes or edges. And these have either positive or non-negative impact over the communication network. QoS for different parameter can be expressed using the following relation.

N N0 N1 N2

Bandwidth e00 e10 e20

Delay e01 e11 e22

Cost E02 E12 E23

190

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

The QoS monitoring at each node involves checking whether there are sufficient resources for meeting the MQoS. This is performed by the QoS Mapping Engine (QME) of the PA at the routers or switches. The QME contains a 2-D resource matrix shown in Table I that maps different network resource parameters with its neighbor routers entity. In Table I, N denotes the current visiting node that meets all the requested constraints of host application and N0, N1, N2 are the attached neighbors of N. eij (where i is the router entity and
j is the constraint) in the resource matrix denotes the value of constraints with the attached interface. The main advantage of using PA in admission control is to find a path with the requested QoS constraints.

such as bandwidth, delay, cost, etc. Thus, the important parameter is checked first by the PA. Algorithm Our algorithm takes a sub-optimal path search approach for the selected QoS constraints. The required input parameter is the MQoS which includes the source ( s ), destination ( d ) and multiple QoS criterion. In this algorithm, { N } denotes the set of nodes that are involved in the path P( s, d ) , while V is the total number of nodes in entire network. 1. MQoS is applied from s to the next hop router through the primary shortest path on the routing table. 2. If PAi accept the request then The RV is updated to {N}, where RV is the route vector. PA stores the partial route and no new QoS provisioning is accepted for the resources. End if 3. If MQoS reaches the d, then positive feedback is sent to the source in the reverse unicast path. End if 4. If the QoS monitoring fails, then PAi sends the negative feedback to the last router that accepts the request. End if 5. When an infeasible link is encountered, PA searches for alternate paths for that can support the requested QoS constraints. 6. PA then bypasses the MQoS through the alternate path. 7. The PA can trace back when it faces infeasible link that fails to satisfy the requested QoS constraints. 8. The algorithm runs repeatedly until it finds any path to destination if there is any. MQoS can be send with current accumulated value of the constraints from the stored value at any time when it is looking for alternate paths. To find the route using MQoS properly, it requires a set of standards which should be implemented in the PA. Low priority traffic that travels in the same route may experience delay due to the high precedence of QoS traffic. If PA wants to satisfy the requested QoS constraints, it adjusts the router to handle high priority traffic. Another advantage of this approach is, PA can dynamically tune only those sub interfaces where high priority traffic actually flows and others IP interface can be remain untouched. When a session is closed PA can readjust the router’s state for usual operation according to RE’s need. Moreover PA can send advance warning message to other same priority or low priority streams to inform them to choose either different path or slow down their transmission to avoid congestion and loss of transmission quality. V. SIMULATION RESULTS

The objective of the PA at any node i , is to check the consistency of the following relations to optimize the requested MQoS.

MIN ( Bli −1 ) ≥ Bcons , where li −1 ∈ P

(1) (2) (3)

∑ Dl ≤ Dcons

i −1

∑ Cl ≤ Ccons
s

s i −1

During the path selection, if PAi accepts the request from PAi −1 , then PAi prohibits the RE (router entity) to accept any new resource request from others until the current request expires. If PAi fails to qualify any one of the inequalities shown above, a reject reply is send to PAi −1 so that PAi −1 can trigger the routing algorithm to find the next alternate path to the destination. From the above description, it is easy to understand that PA can support as many as QoS constraints as the application requires. Addition of a new constraint is just to include it in the resource matrix at each node so the QME can take care off the incoming MQoS request for new constraint.
C. QoS Route Selection The following assumptions are made in order to attain optimal performance:

1. The existing link state protocol such as Open Shortest Path Protocol is used to obtain the topology information. 2. A hop by hop parameter optimization is considered to reach the final destination rather than considering the whole path. 3. The PA and the corresponding routing entity are closely integrated in such a way that if there any changes in the routing entity, then PA is informed to make necessary changes in the QoS resource matrix. If the routing decisions are made in each router with local information by the PA, then it is referred as hop by hop routing. In our algorithm, we maintain a topological order

191

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

A. Simulation Model and Parameters In this section, we examine the performance of our agent based QoS mapping approach with an extensive simulation study based upon the ns-2 network simulator [11]. We compare our results with the normal DiffServ architecture. The topology used in our experiments is depicted in Figure 1. As we can see from the figure, we have five senders and five receivers connected by a ingress router E1 and egress router E2 through a core router.

Rate Vs Packet Loss2 300000 Packet Loss2 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

Figure 3. Rate Vs Packet Loss at Receiver 2
Rate Vs Packet Loss3 300000 Packet Los3 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

Figure 1. Simulation Topology

B. Performance Metrics In our experiments, we vary the bottleneck bandwidth, traffic flow and traffic rate. We measure the following metrics:

• • •

Packet Loss Throughput in terms of packets Throughput in Mb/s

Figure 4. Rate Vs Packet Loss at Receiver 3
Rate Vs Packet Loss4 250000 Packet Loss4 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

The results are described in the next section.
C. Results A. Effect of Varying Rate In our first experiment, we vary the rate as 5Mb, 10Mb, 15Mb and 20Mb in order to calculate the packet loss, throughput (packets received) and throughput (Mbps). The results for the individual receivers are given.

1. Packet Loss
Rate Vs Packet Loss1 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 5 10 Rate 15 20

Figure 5. Rate Vs Packet Loss at Receiver 4
Rate Vs Packet Loss5 250000 Packet Loss5 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

Packet Loss1

Agent Normal

Figure 2. Rate Vs Packet Loss at Receiver 1

Figure 6. Rate Vs Packet Loss at Receiver 5

192

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

Throughput (pkts)4

Figure 2 to 6 shows the packet loss at the receivers 1 to 5 respectively. From the figure, we can see that the packet loss is high in the Normal scheme when compared with our Agent based scheme when varying the rates. 2. Throughput (Packets)
Rate Vs Throughput (pkts)1 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

Rate Vs Throughput (pkts)4 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

Throughput (pkts)1

Figure 10. Rate Vs Throughput at Receiver 4
Rate Vs Throughput (pkts)5 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

Figure 7. Rate Vs Throughput at Receiver 1
Rate Vs Throughput (pkts)2 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

Throughput (pkts)2

Throughput (pkts)5

Figure 11. Rate Vs Throughput at Receiver 5

Figure 7 to 11 gives the Throughput in packets for the receivers 1 to 5 by varying the rates. It shows that the Throughput is more in the case of Agent based scheme when compared with Normal scheme 3. Throughput (Mbps)
Rate Vs Throughput(Mbps)1
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Throughput(Mbps)1

Figure 8. Rate Vs Throughput at Receiver 2
Rate Vs Throughput (pkts)3 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

Throughput (pkts)3

Agent Normal

Figure 9. Rate Vs Throughput at Receiver 3

Figure 12. Rate Vs Throughput at Receiver 1

193

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

Rate Vs Throughput(Mbps)2
Throughput(Mbps)2 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

Figure 12 to 16 gives the Throughput in Mbps for the receivers 1 to 5 for varying the rates. It shows that the Throughput is more in the case of Agent based scheme when compared with Normal scheme. B. Effect of Varying Simulation Time In our second experiment, we vary the time as 2, 4,6,..10 seconds in order to calculate the packet loss, throughput (packets received) and throughput (Mbps). The results for the individual receivers are given. 1. Packet Loss
Tim e Vs Packet Loss1 25000 Packet Loss1 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Agent Normal

Figure 13. Rate Vs Throughput at Receiver 2

Rate Vs Throughput(Mbps)3
Throughput(Mbps)3 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

Tim e

Figure 17. Time Vs Packet Loss at Receiver 1
Tim e Vs Packet Loss2 20000 Packet Loss2 15000 10000 5000 0 Agent Normal

Figure 14. Rate Vs Throughput at Receiver 3

Rate Vs Throughput(Mbps)4
Throughput(Mbps)4 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 10 Rate 15 20 Agent Normal

0

2

4

6

8

10

Tim e

Figure 18. Time Vs Packet Loss at Receiver 2
Tim e Vs Packet Loss3 20000 Packet Loss3 15000 10000 5000 0
Agent Normal

Figure 15. Rate Vs Throughput at Receiver 4

Rate Vs Throughput(Mbps)5
Throughput(Mbps)5 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 10 Rate 15 20

Agent Normal

0

2

4

6

8

10

Tim e

Figure 19. Time Vs Packet Loss at Receiver 3

Figure 16. Rate Vs Throughput at Receiver 5

194

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

Tim e Vs Packet Loss4 20000 Packet Loss4 15000 10000 5000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e Agent Normal
14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Tim e Vs Throughput(pkts)2

Throughput(pkts)2

Agent Normal

0

2

4

6

8

10

Tim e

Figure 23. Time Vs Throughput at Receiver 2 Figure 20. Time Vs Packet Loss at Receiver 4
Tim e Vs Throughput(pkts)3

Tim e Vs Packet Loss5 15000 Packet Loss5 10000 5000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e
14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e Throughput(pkts)3

Agent Normal

Agent Normal

Figure 24. Time Vs Throughput at Receiver 3 Figure 21. Time Vs Packet Loss at Receiver 5
Tim e Vs Throughput(pkts)4 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e

Throughput(pkts)4

Figure 17 to 21 show the packet loss for the receivers 1 to 5. From the figures, we observe that the loss is high in the Normal scheme when compared with our Agent based scheme when varying the time. 2. Throughput in Packets
Tim e Vs Throughput(pkts)1 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e

Agent Normal

Throughput(pkts)1

Agent Normal

Figure 25. Time Vs Throughput at Receiver 4
Tim e Vs Throughput(pkts)5 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e

Throughput(pkts)5

Agent Normal

Figure 22. Time Vs Throughput at Receiver 1

Figure 26. Time Vs Throughput at Receiver 5

195

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

Throughput(Mbps)4

Figure 22 to 26 give the Throughput in packets for the receivers 1 to 5 by varying the time. It shows that the Throughput is more in the case of Agent based scheme when compared with Normal scheme 3. Throughput (Mbps)
Time Vs Throughput(Mbps)1
Throughput(Mbps)1 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Agent Normal

Time Vs Throughput(Mbps)4
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e Agent Normal

Figure 30. Time Vs Throughput Receiver 4

Time Vs Throughput(Mbps)5
Throughput(Mbps)5 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e Agent Normal

Tim e

Figure 27. Time Vs Throughput Receiver 1

Time Vs Throughput(Mbps)2
Throughput(Mbps)2 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e Agent Normal

Figure 31. Time Vs Throughput Receiver 5

Figure 27 to 31 gives the Throughput in Mbps for the receivers 1 to 5 by varying the time. It shows that the Throughput is more in the case of Agent based scheme when compared with Normal scheme. VI. CONCLUSION In this paper, we propose a QoS mapping framework to achieve scalability and end-to-end accuracy in QoS, using a Policy Agent (PA) in every DiffServ domain. This agent performs admission control decisions depending on a policy database. It configures the ingress and egress routers to perform traffic policing and conditioning jobs. The QoS monitoring at each node involves checking whether there are sufficient resources for meeting the Multiple QoS constraints (MQoS). This is performed by the QoS Mapping Engine (QME) of the PA at the routers or switches. Moreover, it constructs the shortest path between a source and destination satisfying the QoS constraints Bandwidth and Delay. During the path selection, if PA at node i accepts the request from its previous node, then PA prohibits the router entity to accept any new resource request from others until the current request expires. If PA fails to qualify any one of the inequalities, a reject reply is send to the PA at previous node so that it can trigger the routing algorithm to find the next alternate path to the destination. By simulation results, we have shown that our proposed approach attains high throughput with reduced packet loss when compared with the normal DiffServ architecture.

Figure 28. Time Vs Throughput Receiver 2

Time Vs Throughput(Mbps)3
Throughput(Mbps)3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e Agent Normal

Figure 29. Time Vs Throughput Receiver 3

196

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2010

REFERENCES
[1] [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki E. Brent Kelly, “Quality of Service in Internet Protocol (IP) Networks”, Infocomm – 2002. [3] S. Terrasa, S. Saez, J. Vila and E. Hernandez, “Comparing the utilization bounds of IntServ and DiffServ”, supported by the “HET-NETs – 2004. [4] R.Braden, D.Clark and S.Shenker, “Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview”, RFC Editor, July 1994. [5] Kazi Khaled Al-Zahid and Mitsuji Matsumoto, “Software Agent (SA) to guarantee QoS for multi constrain applications in all-IP networks”, Second International Conference on Mobile Computing and Ubiquitous Networking, April 2005. [6] Sergio Gonzalez-Valenzuela, Victor C. M. Leung and Son T. Vuong, “Multipoint-to-Point Routing With QoS Guarantees Using Mobile Agents”, Mobile Agents for Telecommunication Applications, SpringerLink, January 2001, DOI: 10.1007/3-540-4651-6. [7] Yao-Nan Lien, Hsing Luh and Chien-Tung Chen, “End-to-end QoS with Budget-Based Management”, Proc. of the 2003 First International Working Conference on Performance Modeling and Evaluation of Heterogeneous Networks, July 2003. [8] Daniel Schlosser and Tobias Hobfeld, “Service Oriented Network Framework Enabling Global QoS and Network Virtualization”, 20th ITC Specialist Seminar, 18.-20. May 2009. [9] Lynda Zitoune, Amel Hamdi, Hugues Mounier and Veronique Veque, “Dynamic Resource Management Approach In QoS-Aware IP Networks Using Flatness Based Trajectory Tracking Control”, IEEE, IET International Symposium On Communication Systems, Networks And Digital Signal Processing, 2009. [10] Rick Whitner, Graham Pollock and Casey Cook, “On Active Measurements in QoS-Enabled IP Networks”, In PAM'02, Fort Collins CO, Mar. 2002. [11] Network Simulator: www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns

Science & Technology, member of JNTU forum for Science & Society and Coordinator for campus networking at JNTU CE,

A.Veerabhadra Reddy completed his B.Tech in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Bapatla college of Engineering In 1988.He worked as a production Engineer in Unitron ltd. Faridabad for one year and from June 1989 to June 1990 worked as Asst. professor in ECE at KITS, Ramtek. Then he has been serving to department of Technical Education A.P, Hyderabad from 1990. He completed his M.Tech (ECE) from JNTU, Kakinada in 2005. Now he is holding the post of Senior lecturer in ECE at Govt. polytechnic for women, Hindupur and additional charge to Govt. Polytechnic, Dharmavaram as an Offier on Special Duty. He was the visiting faculty to RGM Engineering College, Alfa College of Engineering, and Sri Ramakrishna post graduate college, Nandyal, A.P and taught various subjects in Computer Science and Electronics. He worked for 5 years as Assistant project officer in Community polytechnic scheme of MHRD, Govt. of India attached to polytechnics. He has been persuing his Ph.D under the guidance of Dr. D.Sreenivasa Rao, Professor, JNTU.

Dr.D.Srinivasa Rao has 20 years of teaching experience. He worked at CBIT as Lecturer in ECE Department for 6 years during 1988 – 1994. He worked at ECE Department of JNTU, Aanantapur in various capacities for 11 years during 1994-2005. Presently he is working as Professor in ECE Department of JNTU CE, Hyderabad. His research interest are in the area of communications and computer network s Presently 12 research students are working under his guidance. He has 22 publications in various National, International Conferences and Journals. He has attended more than 10 Short Term Courses, Summer Schools, and Workshops, conducted by various organizations. He has organized workshops and refresher courses. He has chaired sessions at various national conferences. He is advisory committee member for GNIT, Hyderabad. He is also governing body member for Syed Hashim College of

197

http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->