Identifying and Handling Non Queue Building Flows in a Bottleneck Link
draft-white-tsvwg-nqb-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (candidate for tsvwg WG)
Last updated 2019-08-21 (latest revision 2019-06-28)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Call For Adoption By WG Issued
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Transport Area Working Group                                    G. White
Internet-Draft                                                 CableLabs
Intended status: Standards Track                              T. Fossati
Expires: December 30, 2019                                           ARM
                                                           June 28, 2019

 Identifying and Handling Non Queue Building Flows in a Bottleneck Link
                        draft-white-tsvwg-nqb-02

Abstract

   This draft proposes the definition of a standardized DiffServ code
   point (DSCP) to identify Non-Queue-Building flows (for example:
   interactive voice and video, gaming, machine to machine
   applications), along with a Per-Hop-Behavior (PHB) that provides a
   separate queue for such flows.

   The purpose of such a marking scheme is to enable networks to provide
   and utilize queues that are optimized to provide low latency and low
   loss for such Non-Queue-Building flows (e.g. shallow buffers,
   optimized media access parameters, etc.).

   This marking scheme and PHB has been developed primarily for use by
   access network segments, where queuing delays and queuing loss caused
   by Queue-Building protocols are manifested.  In particular,
   applications to cable broadband links and mobile network radio and
   core segments are discussed.

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 December 30, 2019.

White & Fossati         Expires December 30, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Non Queue Building Flows               June 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   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.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Non-Queue Building Flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Endpoint Marking and Queue Protection . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Non Queue Building PHB and DSCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  End-to-end Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Relationship to L4S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.1.  DOCSIS Access Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.2.  Mobile Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.3.  WiFi Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Comparison to Existing Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   13. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   The vast majority of packets that are carried by broadband access
   networks are managed by an end-to-end congestion control algorithm,
   such as Reno, Cubic or BBR.  These congestion control algorithms
   attempt to seek the available capacity of the end-to-end path (which
   can frequently be the access network link capacity), and in doing so
   generally overshoot the available capacity, causing a queue to build-
   up at the bottleneck link.  This queue build up results in queuing
   delay that the application experiences as variable latency, and
   commonly results in packet loss as well.

White & Fossati         Expires December 30, 2019               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          Non Queue Building Flows               June 2019

   In contrast to traditional congestion-controlled applications, there
Show full document text