Communication Units Granularity Considerations for Multi-Path Aware Transport Selection
draft-tiesel-taps-communitgrany-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-10-26
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml 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)
TAPS Working Group                                             P. Tiesel
Internet-Draft                                               T. Enghardt
Intended status: Informational                                 TU Berlin
Expires: April 29, 2018                                 October 26, 2017

  Communication Units Granularity Considerations for Multi-Path Aware
                          Transport Selection
                   draft-tiesel-taps-communitgrany-01

Abstract

   This document provides guidelines how to reason about the composition
   of multi-path aware systems and how to compose the functionality
   needed by stacking existing protocols.  It discusses fundamental
   mechanisms that are used in multi-path systems and the consequences
   of applying them to different granularities of communication units.
   This document is targeted as consideration basis for automation of
   destination selection, path selection, and transport protocol
   selection.

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 https://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 April 29, 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
   (https://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

Tiesel & Enghardt        Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Communication Units Granularity        October 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
     1.1.  Communication Units vs. Layering  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Abstract Hierarchy of Communication Units . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Association, Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  Association Set, Flow Set (Flow-Group)  . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Mechanisms Used in Multi-Path Systems . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Destination Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Path Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Chunking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Scheduling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Cost of Transport Option Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Involvement of On-Path Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix A.  Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     A.1.  Since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Today's Internet architecture faces a communication endpoint with a
   set of choices, including choosing a transport protocol and picking
   an IP protocol version.  In many cases, e.g., when fetching data from
   a CDN, an endpoint has also the choice of which endpoint instance,
   [I-D.pauly-taps-guidelines] calls these instances "Derived Endpoint",
   to contact as DNS can return multiple alternative addresses.

   If endpoints want to take advantage of multiple available paths,
   there is another bunch of, partially interdependent, choices:

   o  Which path(s) between the endpoints could be used?

   o  Which path(s) between the endpoints should be used?

   o  Should the paths be used in an active/active way or only as
      active/fallback?

Tiesel & Enghardt        Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       Communication Units Granularity        October 2017
Show full document text