Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: Problem Statement
draft-briscoe-tsvwg-aqm-tcpm-rmcat-l4s-problem-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-06-03
Replaced by draft-briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-arch
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Transport Services (tsv)                                 B. Briscoe, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Simula Research Lab
Intended status: Informational                            K. De Schepper
Expires: December 5, 2016                                Nokia Bell Labs
                                                        M. Bagnulo Braun
                                        Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
                                                            June 3, 2016

   Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service:
                           Problem Statement
           draft-briscoe-tsvwg-aqm-tcpm-rmcat-l4s-problem-00

Abstract

   This document motivates a new service that the Internet could provide
   to eventually replace best efforts for all traffic: Low Latency, Low
   Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S).  It is becoming common for all (or
   most) applications being run by a user at any one time to require low
   latency, but the only solution the IETF can offer for ultra-low
   queuing latency is Diffserv, which only offers low latency for some
   packets at the expense of others.  Diffserv has also proved hard to
   deploy widely end-to-end.

   In contrast, a zero-config incrementally deployable solution has been
   demonstrated that keeps average queuing delay under a millisecond for
   _all_ applications even under very heavy load; and it keeps
   congestion loss to zero.  At the same time it solves the long-running
   problem with the scalability of TCP throughput.  Even with a high
   capacity broadband access, the resulting performance under load is
   remarkably and consistently improved for applications such as
   interactive video, conversational video, voice, Web, gaming, instant
   messaging, remote desktop and cloud-based apps.  This document
   explains the underlying problems that have been preventing the
   Internet from enjoying such performance improvements.  It then
   outlines the parts necessary for a solution and the steps that will
   be needed to standardize them.

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/.

Briscoe, et al.         Expires December 5, 2016                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            L4S Problem Statement                June 2016

   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 December 5, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
     1.1.  The Application Performance Problem . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  The Technology Problem  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.4.  The Standardization Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.1.  Why These Primary Components? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.2.  Why Not Alternative Approaches? . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Traffic (Non-)Policing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  'Latency Friendliness'  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.3.  ECN Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
Show full document text