internet traffic modeling poisson model vs. self-similar model by srividhya chandrasekaran dept of...
TRANSCRIPT
Internet Traffic ModelingPoisson Model vs. Self-Similar
Model
BySrividhya Chandrasekaran
Dept of CSUniversity of Houston
Outline
• Introduction• Poisson model• Self-Similar model• Poisson model vs. Self-Similar model• Experimental Result• Co-Existence• Remarks• References
Introduction
• What is a model?• Why do we need modeling?• What are the kinds of models
available?• What are the models that I have
discussed?
Poisson Model
• Poisson Process : Describes the number of times that some known event has occurred as a function of time, where events can occur at random times.
• Network traffic : Considered as a random arrival process under Poisson modeling.
Self-Similar Model
• Self-Similarity: Something that feels the same irrespective of the scale.
• In case of stochastic objects like time-series, self-similarity is used in the distributional sense
• Long Range Dependence (LRD): The traffic is similar in longer spans of time.
Poisson Model vs. Self-Similar Model
• Poisson model considers network arrival as a random process.
• Self-similarity uses autocorrelation and does not consider the network traffic to be random.
Poisson Model vs. Self-Similar Model
• Poisson Model:
– Does not scale the Bursty Traffic properly.
– In fine scale, Bursty Traffic Appears Bursty, while in Coarse scale, Bursty Traffic appears smoothed out and looks like random noise.
Poisson Model vs. Self-Similar Model
• Self-Similar Model
– Scales Bursty traffic well, because it has similar characteristics on any scale.
– Gives a more accurate pictures due to Long Range Dependence in the network traffic
Experimental Results
• Researchers from UCal Berkeley, found that Poisson model could not accurately capture the network traffic.
Co-Existence
• Bell labs research shows that both the models can co-exist.
• In a low congestion link, Long Range Dependence characteristics are observed.
• As load increases, the model is pushed to Poisson.
• As load decreases, model pushed to Self-Similarity.
Remarks
• Two models to describe network traffic:– Poisson model– Self-Similar model
• Each has its own advantage.
• Both the models can co-exist to give a more exact picture.
References:• A Nonstationary Poisson view of Internet Traffic; TKaragiannis,
M.Molle, M.Falautsos, A.Broido; Infocom in 2004• On Internet traffic Dynamics and Internet Topology II: Inter Model
Validation; W.Willinger; AT&T Labs-Research• Internet Traffic Tends Towards Poisson and Independent as the
Load Increases; J.Cio, W.S.Cleveland, D.Lin, D.X.Sun; Nonlinear Estimation and Classification eds, 2002
• On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic; W.Leland, M.s. Taqqu W.Willingfer, D.V.Wilson; ACM Sigcomm
• Proof of a fundamental Result in Self-Similar Traffic Modeling; M.S.Taqqu, W.Willinger, R.Sherman. ACMCCR: Computer Communication Review
• Self-Similarity; http://students.cs.byu.edu• Traffic modeling of IP Networks Using the Batch Markovian Arrival
Process; A.Klemm, C.Lindemann, M Lohmann; ACM 2003• Modelling and control of broadband traffic using multiplicative
fractal cascades; P.M.Krishna,V.M.Gadre, U.B.Desai; IIT, Bombay
References Contd..• http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/stochastic+process• http://www.sics.se/~aeg/report/node9.html• http://www.sics.se/~aeg/report/node23.html• The Effect of Statistical Multiplexing on the Long-Range
Dependence of Internet Packet Traffic; Jin Cao, William S. Cleveland, Dong Lin, Don X. Su; Bell Labs Technical Report
• http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PoissonDistribution.html• http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PoissonProcess.html• http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda366j.htm• http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35c.htm• Wide-Area Traffic: The Failure of Poisson Modeling; Vern Paxson
and Sally Floyd; University of California, Berkeley• Mathematical Modeling of the internet; F.Kelly, Statistical
Laboratory, Univ of Cambridge.• Internet Traffic modeling: Markovian Approach to self similarity
traffic and prediction of Loss Probability for Finite Queues; S.Kasahara; IEICE Trans Communications, 2001