Overlayed Path Segment Forwarding (OPSF) Problem Statement
draft-li-overlayed-path-segment-forwarding-ps-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-09-26
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html 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)
TSVWG                                                              Y. Li
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                   X. Zhou
Intended Status: Informational                                    Huawei
Expires: March 30, 2019                               September 26, 2018

       Overlayed Path Segment Forwarding (OPSF) Problem Statement
            draft-li-overlayed-path-segment-forwarding-ps-00

Abstract

   Various overlays are used in networks including WAN, enterprise
   campus and others. End to end path are divided into multiple segments
   some of which are overlay encapsulated to achieve better path
   selection, lower latency and so on. Traditional end-to-end transport
   layer is not very responding to microburst and non-congestive packet
   loss caused by the different characteristics of the path segments.
   With the potential transport enhancement for the existing or
   purposely created overlayed path segment, end to end throughput can
   be improved. This document illustrates the problems in some use cases
   and tries to inspire more about whether and how to solve them by
   introducing a reliable, efficient and non-intrusive transport
   forwarding over the overlayed path segment(s).

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

 

Li, et al                                                       [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT           OPSF Problem Statement           September 2018

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3. Use Cases and Problems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1 Microburst in Long Haul Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2 Non-congestive Loss in WiFi Accessed Campus Overlay  . . . .  6
     3.3 Higher Reliability and Low Latency for Interactive
         Application  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4. Features to be Considered for OPSF (Overlayed Path Segment 
      Forwarding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 

Li, et al                                                       [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT           OPSF Problem Statement           September 2018

1. Introduction

   Overlay tunnels are widely deployed for various networks, including
   long haul WAN interconnection, enterprise wireless access networks,
   etc. End to end connection are normally broken into multiple path
   segments for different purposes, for instance, selecting a better
   overlay path over the WAN or deliver the packets over the
   heterogenous networks like enterprise access and core networks. 

   TCP-like transport layer provides end to end flow control and
   congestion control for path reliability and high throughput. Such an
   approach has the problems of slow congestion responding and non-
   congestive loss misinterpretation at the sender and does not achieve
   the optimal performance in certain cases. 

   Some of the problems have been well known over years. With new
   technologies are emerging like NFV (Network Function Virtualization)
   and various flexible overlay protocols, forwarding over the specific
   overlayed path segment(s) can be considered to be enhanced by
   providing a reliable and non-intrusive transport to improve the
   throughput to solve those problems.

   This document illustrates the problems in some use cases and tries to
   inspire more about whether and how to solve them by introducing a
   reliable, efficient and non-intrusive transport forwarding for the
   overlayed path segment(s).

2. Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   OPSF: Overlayed Path Segment Forwarding

3. Use Cases and Problems

   The following subsections presents use cases from different scenarios
   using overlay tunnels with a common need of higher performance and
   reliable overlayed path segment in best effort networks.  

 

Li, et al                                                       [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT           OPSF Problem Statement           September 2018

3.1 Microburst in Long Haul Network

   Internet is a huge sized network of networks. The interconnections of
   end devices using this global network are normally provided by ISPs
   (Internet Service Provider). This ISP provided huge network is
   considered as traditional Internet. CSPs (Cloud Service Provider) are
   connecting their data centers using Internet or self-constructed
   networks/links. This expands Internet's infrastructure and together
   with the original ISP's infrastructure, forms the Internet underlay. 

   NFV further makes it easier to dynamically provision a new virtual
   node as a work load in a cloud for CPU/storage intensive functions.
   With the aid of various mechanisms such as kernel bypassing and
   Virtual IO, forwarding based on virtual node is becoming more and
   more effective. The interconnections among the purposely positioned
   virtual nodes and/or the existing nodes with vitalization functions
   potentially form "the Second Plane" or overlay of Internet. It is
   called the Cloud-Internet Overlay Network (CION) in this document.

   CION makes use of overlay technologies to direct the traffic going to
   the specific path regardless the underlying physical topology to
   achieve better service delivery. Figure 1 shows an emerging  multi-
   segment overlay over large geographic distances. It purposely creates
   or selects overlay nodes (ON) from clouds/Internet. Segment here is
   the virtual hop between two ONs. By directing the traffic to be
   forwarded along those virtual nodes rather than the default path,
   better delivery in terms of throughput and delay can be achieved.
   When a large number of potential virtual nodes are available, there
   is a high chance that a better path could be found [CRONets]. 

 

Li, et al                                                       [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT           OPSF Problem Statement           September 2018

                  _____________
                 /  domain 1   \
                /               \
            ___/                 -------------\
           /                                   \
    PoP1 ->--ON1                                \
          |   |                            ON4------>-- PoP2
          |   |   ON2                     ___|__/
           \__|_ |->|         _____      /   |
              | \|__|__      /     \    /    |
              |  |  |  \____/       \__/     |
             \|/ |  |        _____           |
              |  |  |    ___/     \          |
              |  | \|/  /          \_____    |
              |  |  |  /         domain 2 \ /|\
              |  |  | |       ON3         |  |
              |  |  |  \      |->|        |  |
              |  |  |   \_____|__|_______/   |
              | /|\ |         | \|/          |
              |  |  |         |  |           |
              |  |  |        /|\ |           |
       +--------------------------------------------------+
       |      |  |  |         |  |           |   Internet | 
       |      o--o  o---o->---o  o---o->--o--o   underlay |
       +--------------------------------------------------+

            Figure 1. Cloud-Internet Overlay Network (CION)

   Microburst is an unexpected data bursts within a very small time
   window (probably in micro-seconds). Some research shows microbursts
   happen even for underutilized link [BurstyAna]. The short spikes
   caused by microburst result in higher jitter and sometimes packet
   loss in a network. Such loss may trigger the congestion control like
   reducing the sending rate at the TCP sender as it exhibits the normal
   pattern of congestion loss in terms of duplicate acknowledgements
   and/or RTT increases. As microburst is extremely short, the packet
   loss caused by it is non-persistent and rather random. Therefore it
   does not necessarily require the sender to reduce its sending rate.
   Invoking the congestion control at the sender may unnecessarily make
   the average sending rate low and degrades the throughput in long haul
   CION. In addition, long haul transmission may take hundreds of
   milliseconds. The packet loss response at the sender to microburst
   over the long haul transmission is not timely. Sender's reaction does
   not really respond to the current instantaneous path situation.

   Overlay nodes in the middle can potentially offer new possibilities,
 

Li, et al                                                       [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT           OPSF Problem Statement           September 2018

   e.g. retransmission over ONs, to better response to microbursts. Such
   enhancement can be enabled based on the individual overlayed path
   segment rather than on the entire end to end path to improve the
   response time and performance from the packet loss/re-order caused by
   microburst. Such enhancement should avoid racing with higher layer
   transport protocols.

3.2 Non-congestive Loss in WiFi Accessed Campus Overlay

   Different path segments have different characteristics. The
   probabilities of packet loss over every and each segments have a
   large variance. The non-congestive packet loss usually occurs in some
   specific overlayed path segments. End to end TCP-like transport
   protocols do not take this factor into careful account. It assumes
   that packet loss for any reason is almost evenly distributed across
   the entire path, and adjusts the sender to accommodate the packet
   loss of the bottleneck segment. This results in non-optimal sending
   rate in some cases.

   Figure 2 shows the WiFi accessed enterprise campus. AP connects to
   its edge switch normally using Cat5/5e twisted-pair cable which
   typically provides less than 10G bandwidth. The data packets are
   tunneled using various overlay mechanisms, like VXLAN [RFC7348], LISP
   [RFC6830] or CAPWAP [RFC5415]. Two edge switches use another overlay
   segment over campus core network to deliver the packets which
   provides more functions like policy enforcement and mobility
   enhancement. This overlay is usually over fiber which provides higher
   bandwidth.

 

Li, et al                                                       [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT           OPSF Problem Statement           September 2018

                _____________________________
     +-----+  /|                            |\  +-----+
     |edge1| | |                            | | |edge2|
     +-----+  \|____________________________|/  +-----+
        _                                          _
       /_\                fiber                   /_\
       | |                                        | |
       | |                                        | |
       | | Cat5/5e                                | | Cat5/5e
       | | cable                                  | | cable
       |_|                                        |_|
       \_/                                        \_/
     +-----+                                    +-----+
     | AP1 |                                    | AP2 |
     +-----+                                    +-----+
        |                                          |
        | WiFi access                              | WiFi access
        |                                          |
     +----+                                      +----+
     |STA1|                                      |STA2|
     +----+                                      +----+

        Figure 2. WiFi accessed Campus Overlay Network

   Cat5/5e cables, especially UTP (Unshielded twisted pair), are
   susceptible to distance, interference, and bundling. The environment
   and the way they are deployed cause drastic changes in random loss
   rate. The overlay tunnel running over it will have more transmission
   unreliability than the overlay running on the fiber. Current
   transport layer is not able to identify such specific problematic
   segment and simply leaves it for the end to end congestion control to
   handle it so that the sender may be kept at a lower sending rate and
   the throughput is not optimal.

   In addition to the uplink of the AP, the non-congestive packet loss
   generated by the wireless access link itself accounts for the largest
   proportion in the end-to-end path. Wifi access is affected by fades,
   interference, attenuation and corruption. Non-congestive loss is
   common. Its link layer has mechanisms to do the packet recovery.
   However the number of local link layer retransmission is usually
   based on the empirical value or the static configuration. When the
   value is not properly chosen, the TCP sender can be unnecessarily
   exposed by the random packet loss and reduce the sending rate. It is
   hard to make the link layer frame recovery work in concert with the
   current end to end transport layer. 

 

Li, et al                                                       [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT           OPSF Problem Statement           September 2018

3.3 Higher Reliability and Low Latency for Interactive Application

   Mobile gaming and VoIP like application normally can not tolerate a
   retransmission even over a path segment. When two divergent overlay
   segments are available like shown in figure 3 for path from ON1 to
   ON2, purposely duplicating packets over two segments provides more
   reliability. Two disjoint segments can usually be obtained by
   measuring to find segments with very low mathematical correlation in
   latency change. When the number of overlay nodes is large, it is easy
   to find such disjoint segments. Random node or memory failure may
   also benefit from the duplicating packets over disjoint segments.

                       ON-A
             +----------o------------------+
             |                             |
             |                             |
      A -----o ON1                      ON2o----- B
             |                             |
             +-----------------------o-----+
                                   ON-B

   Figure 3. Multiple Overlayed Path Segments for Higher Reliability

4. Features to be Considered for OPSF (Overlayed Path Segment
   Forwarding)

   The diagram shown in Figure 4 illustrates a typical scenario with an
   overlayed path segment. Transport layer provide the end to end flow
   control between two end host. When an overlayed path segment exists
   or is purposely created between two overlay nodes, an enhanced
   forwarding over that segment can potentially solve some problems of
   end to end transport performance issues and at the same time provides
   more reliability and flexibility to traffic path. 

 

Li, et al                                                       [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT           OPSF Problem Statement           September 2018

                                                      ON=overlay node
                                                      UN=underlay node

    +-----------+                                          +-----------+
    |Application|<-------------- end-to-end -------------> |Application|
    +-----------+                                          +-----------+
    | Transport |<-------------- end-to-end -------------> | Transport |
    |           |                                          |           |
    +-----------+                    overlayed             +-----------+
    |           |            +----+ path segment+----+     |           |
    |           |            | ON |<----------->| ON |     |           |
    |  Network  |   +----+   +----+   +----+    +----+     |  Network  |
    |           |<->| UN |<->| UN |<->| UN |<-->| UN |<--->|           |
    +-----------+   +----+   +----+   +----+    +----+     +-----------+
       End Host                                               End Host

    Figure 4. A Simple Overlayed Path Segment Forwarding Usage Scenario

   Features need more investigations include, 

   - Enhancement for the overlayed path segment, like retransmission,
   FEC(forward error correction), duplicating packet over the segments,
   lightweighted congestion control, etc. When the segment is a small
   portion of the whole end to end path, the retransmission over it has
   more benefit. Retransmission over the path segment has to be
   carefully designed to avoid the racing condition with the upper
   layer. The segment enabled retransmission may measure the segment RTT
   by itself to determine the appropriate retransmission attempts. On
   the other hand, the upper layers including the applications can
   indicate the credit as the safe band time that allows for the
   overlayed path segment to do the retransmission. At the same time,
   the persistent congestion caused packet loss should be exposed to the
   upper transport layer, so that the sender's congestion control can
   work properly.  The timing of activation of the enhancement scheme,
   parameters such as the threshold setting of retransmission are worthy
   of further determination.

   - Measurement based path selection for better performance, backup or
   load balancing. Overlay nodes have to be continuously monitored in
   order to find one or more appropriate overlayed paths. Such
   measurement can be in-band or out of band of data packets. When more
   than one overlayed segment with the same ingress and egress are used,
 

Li, et al                                                       [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT           OPSF Problem Statement           September 2018

   it has to be determined how the traffic are split and merged.  

5. Security Considerations

   TBD

6. IANA Considerations

   No IANA action is required. 

7. References

7.1  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

7.2  Informative References

   [RFC4122]  Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
              Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122, July
              2005.

   [RFC5415]  Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley,
              Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
              (CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009.

   [BurstyAna] Chung S., Agrawal D., Kim M., Hong J., and Park K.
              "Analysis of bursty packet loss characteristics on
              underutilized links using SNMP", IEEE/IFIP E2EMON, 2004.

   [CRONets] Cai, C. X., Le, F., Sun, X., Xie, G. G., Jamjoom, H., and
              Campbell, R. H. CRONets: Cloud-Routed Overlay Networks. In
              36th International Conference on Distributed Computing
              Systems (ICDCS) (2016), IEEE, pp. 67--77. 

   [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, January
              2013.

   [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
 

Li, et al                                                      [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT           OPSF Problem Statement           September 2018

              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, August 2014.

Authors' Addresses

   Yizhou Li
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012
   China

   Phone: +86-25-56624584
   EMail: liyizhou@huawei.com

   Xingwang Zhou
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012
   China

   EMail: zhouxingwang@huawei.com

Li, et al                                                      [Page 11]