One Way Latency Considerations for MPTCP
draft-song-mptcp-owl-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-12-17
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)
MPTCP                                                           F. Song
Internet Draft                                                 H. Zhang
Intended status: Informational              Beijing Jiaotong University
Expires: June 14, 2018                                          H. Chan
                                                                 A. Wei
                                                    Huawei Technologies
                                                           Dec 13, 2017

                 One Way Latency Considerations for MPTCP
                          draft-song-mptcp-owl-03

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/.

   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 June 14, 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
   (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.

Song, et al.            Expires June 13, 2018                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         OWL Considerations for MPTCP           Dec 2017

Abstract

   This document discusses the use of One Way Latency (OWL) for
   enhancing multipath TCP (MPTCP). Several use cases of OWL, such as
   retransmission policy and crucial data scheduling are analyzed. Two
   kinds of OWL measurement approaches are also provided and compared.
   More explorations related with OWL will be helpful to the
   performance of MPTCP.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................ 2
   2. Conventions and Terminology.................................. 3
   3. Potential Usages of OWL in MPTCP............................. 3
      3.1. Crucial Data Scheduling................................. 4
      3.2. Congestion control...................................... 5
      3.3. Packet Retransmission................................... 6
      3.4. Bandwidth Estimation.................................... 6
      3.5. Shared Bottleneck Detection............................. 7
   4. OWL Measurements in TCP...................................... 7
   5. Security Considerations...................................... 8
   6. IANA Considerations ......................................... 8
   7. References .................................................. 8
      7.1. Normative References.................................... 8
      7.2. Informative Reference................................... 8
   Authors' Addresses ............................................. 9

1. Introduction

   Both end hosts and the intermediate devices in the Internet have
   basically been equipped with more and more physical network
   interfaces. The importance of interfaces, which had been widely used
   in packet forwarding at the end hosts, had been confirmed and
   utilized [RFC6419]. Moreover, to aggregate more bandwidths, to
   decrease packet delay and to provide better services, the increased
   capacity provided by the multiple paths created by multiple
   interfaces is leveraged. Unlike traditional TCP [RFC0793], many
   transport layer protocols, such as MPTCP [RFC6182] [RFC6824] enable
   the end hosts to concurrently transfer data on top of multiple paths
   to greatly increase the overall throughput.

   Round-trip time (RTT) is commonly used in congestion control and
   loss recovery mechanism for data transmission. Yet the key issue for
   data transmission is simply the delay of the data transmission along
   a path which does not include the return. It may be very different
   of the latency for uplink and downlink between two peers. Latency in

Song, et al.            Expires June 13, 2018                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         OWL Considerations for MPTCP           Dec 2017

   the opposite direction along a path can easily influence RTT, which
   cannot accurately reflect the delay of the data transmission along
Show full document text