Layer 4 Path preference negotiation for DPS
draft-arumuganainar-rtgwg-dps-l4-ppn-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Arun Arumuganainar | ||
| Last updated | 2015-04-07 (Latest revision 2014-10-04) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document is a supporting draft to draft-arumuganainar-rtgwg-DPS- Requirements-01. The DPS draft talks about high level architecture to implement dynamic path selection based on application. The DPS draft suggests the implementation to be done in three steps: 1) DPS Signaling: Here participating routers communicate with each other to exchange application related information 2) Profile Based Filter: This section describes how packets can be classified and filtered 3) DPS Routing Frame Work: This ensures that separated traffic remains separated through out the network While overall architecture is still valid, this draft suggests an enhancement to the DPS Signaling component. The currently implemented technique uses BGP for the signaling requirements. Whilst this is good for certain cases, applications that can be off loaded to the secondary link are pre-decided. It restricts behavior from responding to dynamic network conditions. For example, a network administrator would want to off load some of the non-critical applications over the secondary link, however when there is acute congestion within the network, they might want the router to behave aggressively by off loading more applications to the secondary circuit. Yet while doing so there should not be any asymmetric routing on the network. Since BGP is essentially a control plane protocol, it is not aware of what is happening on the network in the forwarding plane, hence there is a need to do the signaling in the forwarding plane. This drafts suggest one such mechanism. Here the idea is to exchange the Path Preference information at layer 4 level. Such signaling could happen during TCP connection establishment phase. When done this way, a decision can be taken for each of the session and hence making it more dynamic than the one that can achieved through BGP.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)