Header compression and multiplexing in LISP
draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux-03
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-08-31
|
|
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: March 4, 2018 University of Zaragoza
August 31, 2017
Header compression and multiplexing in LISP
draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux-03
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 a way 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 can 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 March 4, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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 March 4, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CM-LISP August 2017
(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 some
services with real-time and interactivity constraints (VoIP,
videoconferencing, telemedicine, video surveillance, online gaming,
etc.) 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
(Machine to Machine) services 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 further stressed. As an
example, an IPv4 TCP ACK (40 bytes), sent 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 March 4, 2018 [Page 2]
Show full document text