Header compression and multiplexing in LISP
draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-11-14
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf xml 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)
Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Group                  J. Saldana
Internet-Draft                                      J. Fernandez Navajas
Intended status: Experimental                                J. Ruiz Mas
Expires: May 18, 2017                             University of Zaragoza
                                                       November 14, 2016

              Header compression and multiplexing in LISP
                   draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux-01

Abstract

   When small payloads are transmitted through a packet-switched
   network, the resulting overhead may result significant.  This is
   stressed in the case of LISP, where a number of headers have to be
   added to each packet.

   This document proposes to send together, into a single packet, a
   number of small packets, which are in the buffer of a ITR, having the
   same ETR as destination.  This way, they will share a single LISP
   header, and therefore bandwidth savings can be obtained, and a
   reduction in the overall number of packets sent to the network can be
   achieved.

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).  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 May 18, 2017.

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

Saldana, et al.           Expires May 18, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   CM-LISP                   November 2016

   (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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Native LISP and proposed solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Basic multiplexing method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Multiplexing method based on Simplemux  . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Header compression and multiplexing method  . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   The rate of small packets present in the Internet is significant
   [Simplemux_CIT].  First, TCP Acknowledgements (ACKs), which may have
   no payload, are sent in every TCP connection.  In addition real-time
   services (VoIP, videoconferencing, telemedicine, video surveillance,
   online gaming, etc.) with interactivity demands may generate a
   traffic profile consisting of high rates of small packets, which are
   necessary in order to transmit frequent updates between the two
   extremes of the communication.  In addition, some other services also
   use small packets as e.g., instant messaging, M2M packets sending
   collected data in sensor networks or IoT scenarios using wireless
   links.

   When small payloads are transmitted through a packet-switched
   network, the resulting overhead may result significant.  This is more
   signifcant in the case of tunneling protocols, where a number of
   headers are prepended to a packet.

   In the case of LISP, this overhead may be stressed.  As an example,
   an IPv4 TCP ACK (40 bytes), with standard LISP over IPv4 requires 76
   bytes (96 if IPv6 is used by one of the IP headers).  Or an RTP
   packet with e.g. 20 bytes of payload, using standard LISP over IPv4,
   requires 96 bytes (116 if IPv6 is used in one of the IP headers).

Saldana, et al.           Expires May 18, 2017                  [Page 2]
Show full document text