One Way Latency Considerations for MPTCP
draft-song-mptcp-owl-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-06-20
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)
MPTCP                                                            F. Song
Internet-Draft                                                  H. Zhang
Intended status: Informational               Beijing Jiaotong University
Expires: September 14, 2017                                      H. Chan
                                                                  A. Wei
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                          March 13, 2017

                One Way Latency Considerations for MPTCP
                        draft-song-mptcp-owl-02

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.

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 September 14, 2017.

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

Song, et al.           Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        OWL Considerations for MPTCP            March 2017

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

1.  Introduction

   Both end hosts and the intermediate devices in the Internet have
   basically been equipping with more and more physical network
   interfaces.  Whereas multiple interfaces had been widely used in
   packet forwarding, traffic engineering, etc., the importance of these
   interfaces at the end hosts had been confirmed and utilized
   [RFC6419].  Moreover, the increased capacity provided by the multiple
   paths created by multiple interfaces is leveraged to aggregate more
   bandwidths, to decrease packet delay and to provide better services.
   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.  The latency for uplink and
   downlink between two peers may be very different.  RTT, which cannot
Show full document text