One Way Latency Considerations for MPTCP
draft-song-mptcp-owl-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-12-27
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                                                        Fei Song
Internet Draft                                            Hongke Zhang
Intended status: Informational               Beijing Jiaotong University
Expires: June 2017                                     December 27, 2016

                 One Way Latency Considerations for MPTCP
                        draft-song-mptcp-owl-01.txt

Abstract

   This document discusses the One Way Latency (OWL) utilization for
   enhancing multipath TCP (MPTCP) transmission, which is a potential
   and beneficial technology in MPTCP Working Group (WG). Several
   representative usages of OWL, such as retransmission policy, crucial
   data scheduling, are analyzed. Two kind s of OWL measurement
   approaches are also provided and compared. We believe that more
   explorations related with OWL will be important for MPTCP.

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 27, 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents

Song, et al.            Expires June 27, 2017                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      One Way Latency Considerations        December 2016

   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 ................................................ 2
   2. Terminology ................................................. 3
   3. Potential Usages of OWL in MPTCP............................. 3
      3.1. Retransmission Policy................................... 3
      3.2. Crucial Data Scheduling................................. 4
      3.3. Congestion Control Mechanism............................ 4
      3.4. Bandwidth Estimation.................................... 4
      3.5. Shared Bottleneck Detection............................. 4
   4. The Classification of OWL Measurement........................ 4
   5. Security Considerations...................................... 5
   6. IANA Considerations ......................................... 5
   7. References .................................................. 5
      7.1. Normative References.................................... 5
      7.2. Informative References.................................. 5
   8. Acknowledgments ............................................. 6

1. Introduction

   As the basic elements of Internet, both the intermediate devices and
   the end hosts have equipped more and more physical network 
   interfaces.
   For the former, multiple interfaces had been widely used in packet
   forwarding, traffic engineering, etc. For the latter, the importance
   of these interfaces had been confirmed and utilized [RFC6419].
   Moreover, the capacity of multiple paths created by multiple
   interfaces is leveraged to aggregate higher bandwidth, achieve lower
   delay and provide better services. Different with traditional TCP
   [RFC0793], many transport layer protocols enable the end hosts to
   concurrently transfer data on top of multiple paths and greatly
   increase the overall throughput, such as MPTCP [RFC6182][RFC6356].

   However, we believe that the performance of current practices of
   MPTCP could be further improved by fully taking advantage of One Way
   Latency (OWL) during the transmission. In single path transfer mode,
   there is less benefits to achieve if one separates the OWL out of
   Round Trip Time (RTT) because there are no other available paths to
   choose.

Song, et al.            Expires June 27, 2017                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      One Way Latency Considerations        December 2016

   Motivated by previous facts, we suggest discussing the necessary
Show full document text