Load Sharing for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath-10

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-05-29
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                            P. Amer
Internet-Draft                                    University of Delaware
Intended status: Experimental                                   M. Becke
Expires: November 30, 2015                  University of Duisburg-Essen
                                                            T. Dreibholz
                                              Simula Research Laboratory
                                                                 N. Ekiz
                                                  University of Delaware
                                                              J. Iyengar
                                           Franklin and Marshall College
                                                            P. Natarajan
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                              R. Stewart
                                                          Adara Networks
                                                               M. Tuexen
                                        Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences
                                                            May 29, 2015

    Load Sharing for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
                draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath-10.txt

Abstract

   The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) supports multi-homing
   for providing network fault tolerance.  However, mainly one path is
   used for data transmission.  Only timer-based retransmissions are
   carried over other paths as well.

   This document describes how multiple paths can be used simultaneously
   for transmitting user messages.

Status of This Memo

   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 November 30, 2015.

Amer, et al.            Expires November 30, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Load Sharing for SCTP                 May 2015

Copyright Notice

   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Load Sharing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Split Fast Retransmissions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Appropriate Congestion Window Growth  . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Appropriate Delayed Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Non-Renegable SACK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  The New Chunk Type: Non-Renegable SACK (NR-SACK)  . . . .   6
     4.3.  An Illustrative Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.4.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.1.  Sending an NR-SACK chunk  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.2.  Receiving an NR-SACK Chunk  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  Buffer Blocking Mitigation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     5.1.  Sender Buffer Splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     5.2.  Receiver Buffer Splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     5.3.  Chunk Rescheduling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     5.4.  Problems during Path Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       5.4.1.  Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       5.4.2.  Solution: Potentially-failed Destination State  . . .  19
     5.5.  Non-Renegable SACK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
Show full document text