| RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques | D. Hayes, Ed. |
| Internet-Draft | University of Oslo |
| Intended status: Experimental | S. Ferlin |
| Expires: April 21, 2016 | Simula Research Laboratory |
| M. Welzl | |
| K. Hiorth | |
| University of Oslo | |
| October 19, 2015 |
Shared Bottleneck Detection for Coupled Congestion Control for RTP Media.
draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-03
This document describes a mechanism to detect whether end-to-end data flows share a common bottleneck. It relies on summary statistics that are calculated by a data receiver based on continuous measurements and regularly fed to a grouping algorithm that runs wherever the knowledge is needed. This mechanism complements the coupled congestion control mechanism in draft-welzl-rmcat-coupled-cc.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2016.
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
In the Internet, it is not normally known if flows (e.g., TCP connections or UDP data streams) traverse the same bottlenecks. Even flows that have the same sender and receiver may take different paths and share a bottleneck or not. Flows that share a bottleneck link usually compete with one another for their share of the capacity. This competition has the potential to increase packet loss and delays. This is especially relevant for interactive applications that communicate simultaneously with multiple peers (such as multi-party video). For RTP media applications such as RTCWEB, [I-D.welzl-rmcat-coupled-cc] describes a scheme that combines the congestion controllers of flows in order to honor their priorities and avoid unnecessary packet loss as well as delay. This mechanism relies on some form of Shared Bottleneck Detection (SBD); here, a measurement-based SBD approach is described.
The current Internet is unable to explicitly inform endpoints as to which flows share bottlenecks, so endpoints need to infer this from whatever information is available to them. The mechanism described here currently utilises packet loss and packet delay, but is not restricted to these.
Packet loss is often a relatively rare signal. Therefore, on its own it is of limited use for SBD, however, it is a valuable supplementary measure when it is more prevalent.
End-to-end delay measurements include noise from every device along the path in addition to the delay perturbation at the bottleneck device. The noise is often significantly increased if the round-trip time is used. The cleanest signal is obtained by using One-Way-Delay (OWD).
Measuring absolute OWD is difficult since it requires both the sender and receiver clocks to be synchronised. However, since the statistics being collected are relative to the mean OWD, a relative OWD measurement is sufficient. Clock skew is not usually significant over the time intervals used by this SBD mechanism (see [RFC6817] A.2 for a discussion on clock skew and OWD measurements). However, in circumstances where it is significant, Section 3.3.2 outlines a way of adjusting the calculations to cater for it.
Each packet arriving at the bottleneck buffer may experience very different queue lengths, and therefore different waiting times. A single OWD sample does not, therefore, characterize the path well. However, multiple OWD measurements do reflect the distribution of delays experienced at the bottleneck.
Flows that share a common bottleneck may traverse different paths, and these paths will often have different base delays. This makes it difficult to correlate changes in delay or loss. This technique uses the long term shape of the delay distribution as a base for comparison to counter this.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Acronyms used in this document:
Conventions used in this document:
.
Reference [Hayes-LCN14] uses T=350ms, N=50, p_l=0.1. The other parameters have been tightened to reflect minor enhancements to the algorithm outlined in Section 3.3: c_s=-0.01, p_f=p_d=0.1, p_s=0.15, p_mad=0.1, p_v=0.7. M=30, F=20, and c_h = 0.3 are additional parameters defined in the document. These are values that seem to work well over a wide range of practical Internet conditions.
The mechanism described in this document is based on the observation that the distribution of delay measurements of packets that traverse a common bottleneck have similar shape characteristics. These shape characteristics are described using 3 key summary statistics: Section 3.1.5) used as a supplementary statistic.
with packet loss (estimate pkt_loss, see
Summary statistics help to address both the noise and the path lag problems by describing the general shape over a relatively long period of time. Each summary statistic portrays a "view" of the bottleneck link characteristics, and when used together, they provide a robust discrimination for grouping flows. They can be signalled from a receiver, which measures the OWD and calculates the summary statistics, to a sender, which is the entity that is transmitting the media stream. An RTP Media device may be both a sender and a receiver. SBD can be performed at either a sender or a receiver or both.
+----+
| H2 |
+----+
|
| L2
|
+----+ L1 | L3 +----+
| H1 |------|------| H3 |
+----+ +----+
A network with 3 hosts (H1, H2, H3) and 3 links (L1, L2, L3).
Figure 1
In Figure 1, there are two possible cases for shared bottleneck detection: a sender-based and a receiver-based case.
A discussion of the required signalling for the receiver-based case is beyond the scope of this document. For the sender-based case, the messages and their data format will be defined here in future versions of this document.
We envisige the following exchange during initialisation:
Measurements are calculated over a base interval, T and summarized over N or M such intervals. All summary statistics can be calculated incrementally.
The mean delay is not a useful signal for comparisons between flows since flows may traverse quite different paths and clocks will not necessarily be synchronized. However, it is a base measure for the 3 summary statistics. The mean delay, E_T(OWD), is the average one way delay measured over T.
To facilitate the other calculations, the last N E_T(OWD) values will need to be stored in a cyclic buffer along with the moving average of E_T(OWD): Section 3.4 for a discussion on improving the responsiveness of the mechanism.)
where M ≤ N. Setting M to be less than N allows the mechanism to be more responsive to changes, but potentially at the expense of a higher error rate (see
Skewness is difficult to calculate efficiently and accurately. Ideally it should be calculated over the entire period (M * T) from the mean OWD over that period. However this would require storing every delay measurement over the period. Instead, an estimate is made over M * T based on a calculation every T using the previous T's calculation of mean_delay.
The base for the skewness calculation is estimated using a counter initialised every T. It increments for one way delay samples (OWD) below the mean and decrements for OWD above the mean. So for each OWD sample:
The mean_delay does not include the mean of the current T interval to enable it to be calculated iteratively.
skew_est = sum_MT(skew_base_T)/num_MT(OWD)
Note: Care must be taken when implementing the comparisons to ensure that rounding does not bias skew_est. It is important that the mean is calculated with a higher precision than the samples.
Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) delay is a robust variability measure that copes well with different send rates. It can be implemented in an online manner as follows:
For calculation of freq_est p_v=0.7
For the grouping threshold p_mad=0.1
An estimate of the low frequency oscillation of the delay signal is calculated by counting and normalising the significant mean, E_T(OWD), crossings of mean_delay: [Hayes-LCN14], which calculated freq_est every T using the current E_N(E_T(OWD)). Our tests show that this approximation of freq_est yields results that are almost identical to when the full calculation is performed every T.
Freq_est is a number between 0 and 1. Freq_est can be approximated incrementally as follows:
This approximation of freq_est was not used in
The proportion of packets lost over the period NT is used as a supplementary measure:
Note: When pkt_loss is small it is very variable, however, when pkt_loss is high it becomes a stable measure for making grouping decisions.
The following grouping algorithm is RECOMMENDED for SBD in the RMCAT context and is sufficient and efficient for small to moderate numbers of flows. For very large numbers of flows (e.g. hundreds), a more complex clustering algorithm may be substituted.
Since no single metric is precise enough to group flows (due to noise), the algorithm uses multiple metrics. Each metric offers a different "view" of the bottleneck link characteristics, and used together they enable a more precise grouping of flows than would otherwise be possible.
Flows determined to be transiting a bottleneck are successively divided into groups based on freq_est, var_est, skew_est and pkt_loss.
The first step is to determine which flows are transiting a bottleneck. This is important, since if a flow is not transiting a bottleneck its delay based metrics will not describe the bottleneck, but the "noise" from the rest of the path. Skewness, with proportion of packet loss as a supplementary measure, is used to do this:
The parameter c_s controls how sensitive the mechanism is in detecting a bottleneck. C_s = 0.0 was used in [Hayes-LCN14]. A value of c_s = 0.05 is a little more sensitive, and c_s = -0.05 is a little less sensitive. C_h controls the hysteresis on flows that were grouped as transiting a bottleneck last time. If the test result is TRUE, PB=TRUE, otherwise PB=FALSE.
These flows, flows transiting a bottleneck, are then progressively divided into groups based on the freq_est, var_est, and skew_est summary statistics. The process proceeds according to the following steps:
The threshold, (p_mad * var_est), is with respect to the highest value in the difference.
The threshold, (p_d * pkt_loss), is with respect to the highest value in the difference.
This procedure involves sorting estimates from highest to lowest. It is simple to implement, and efficient for small numbers of flows (up to 10-20).
Grouping decisions can be made every T from the second T, however they will not attain their full design accuracy until after the 2*N'th T interval. We recommend that grouping decisions are not made until 2*M T intervals.
Network conditions, and even the congestion controllers, can cause bottlenecks to fluctuate. A coupled congestion controller MAY decide only to couple groups that remain stable, say grouped together 90% of the time, depending on its objectives. Recommendations concerning this are beyond the scope of this draft and will be specific to the coupled congestion controllers objectives.
The following describe small changes to the calculation of the key metrics that help remove noise from them. Currently these "tweaks" are described separately to keep the main description succinct. In future revisions of the draft these enhancements may replace the original key metric calculations.
When a path has no bottleneck, var_est will be very small and the recorded significant mean crossings will be the result of path noise. Thus up to N-1 meaningless mean crossings can be a source of error at the point a link becomes a bottleneck and flows traversing it begin to be grouped.
To remove this source of noise from freq_est:
These three changes can help to remove the non-bottleneck noise from freq_est.
Generally sender and receiver clock skew will be too small to cause significant errors in the estimators. Skew_est is most sensitive to this type of noise. In circumstances where clock skew is high, basing skew_est only on the previous T's mean provides a noisier but reliable signal.
A better method is to estimate the effect the clock skew is having on the summary statistics, and then adjust statistics accordingly. A simple online method of doing this based on min_T(OWD) will be described here in a subsequent version of the draft.
Measurement based shared bottleneck detection makes decisions in the present based on what has been measured in the past. This means that there is always a lag in responding to changing conditions. This mechanism is based on summary statistics taken over (N*T) seconds. This mechanism can be made more responsive to changing conditions by:
Although more recent measurements are more valuable, older measurements are still needed to gain an accurate estimate of the distribution descriptor we are measuring. Unfortunately, the simple exponentially weighted moving average weights drop off too quickly for our requirements and have an infinite tail. A simple linearly declining weighted moving average also does not provide enough weight to the most recent measurements. We propose a piecewise linear distribution of weights, such that the first section (samples 1:F) is flat as in a simple moving average, and the second section (samples F+1:M) is linearly declining weights to the end of the averaging window. We choose integer weights, which allows incremental calculation without introducing rounding errors.
The weighted moving average for skew_est, based on skew_est in Section 3.1.2, can be calculated as follows:
where numsampT is an array of the number of OWD samples in each T (i.e. num_T(OWD)), and numsampT(1) is the most recent; skew_base_T(1) is the most recent calculation of skew_base_T; 1:F refers to the integer values 1 through to F, and [(M-F):1] refers to an array of the integer values (M-F) declining through to 1; and ".*" is the array scalar dot product operator.
To calculate this weighted skew_est incrementally:
Where cycle(....) refers to the operation on a cyclic buffer where the start of the buffer is now the next element in the buffer.
Similarly the weighted moving average for var_est can be calculated as follows:
where numsampT is an array of the number of OWD samples in each T (i.e. num_T(OWD)), and numsampT(1) is the most recent; skew_base_T(1) is the most recent calculation of skew_base_T; 1:F refers to the integer values 1 through to F, and [(M-F):1] refers to an array of the integer values (M-F) declining through to 1; and ".*" is the array scalar dot product operator. When removing oscillation noise (see Section 3.3.1) this calculation must be adjusted to allow for invalid var_base_T records.
Var_est can be calculated incrementally in the same way as skew_est in Section 3.4.1. However, note that the buffer numsampT is used for both calculations so the operations on it should not be repeated.
This section discusses the OWD measurements required for this algorithm to detect shared bottlenecks.
The SBD mechanism described in this draft relies on differences between OWD measurements to avoid the practical problems with measuring absolute OWD (see [Hayes-LCN14] section IIIC). Since all summary statistics are relative to the mean OWD and sender/receiver clock offsets should be approximately constant over the measurement periods, the offset is subtracted out in the calculation.
The SBD mechanism requires timing information precise enough to be able to make comparisons. As a rule of thumb, the time resolution should be less than one hundredth of a typical path's range of delays. In general, the lower the time resolution, the more care that needs to be taken to ensure rounding errors do not bias the skewness calculation.
Typical RTP media flows use sub-millisecond timers, which should be adequate in most situations.
The University of Oslo is currently working on an implementation of this in the Chromium browser.
This work was part-funded by the European Community under its Seventh Framework Programme through the Reducing Internet Transport Latency (RITE) project (ICT-317700). The views expressed are solely those of the authors.
This memo includes no request to IANA.
The security considerations of RFC 3550 [RFC3550], RFC 4585 [RFC4585], and RFC 5124 [RFC5124] are expected to apply.
Non-authenticated RTCP packets carrying shared bottleneck indications and summary statistics could allow attackers to alter the bottleneck sharing characteristics for private gain or disruption of other parties communication.
Changes made to this document:
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |