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