Transport Area Working Group J. Saldana
Internet-Draft J. Fernandez Navajas
Intended status: Standards Track J. Ruiz Mas
Expires: September 5, 2019 University of Zaragoza
March 4, 2019
Simplemux. A generic multiplexing protocol
draft-saldana-tsvwg-simplemux-11
Abstract
The high amount of small packets present in nowaday's networks
results in a low efficiency, as the size of the headers and the
payload of these packets can be in the same order of magnitude. In
some situations, multiplexing (i.e. aggregating) a number of small
packets into a bigger one is desirable in order to improve the
efficiency. For example, a number of small packets can be sent
together between a pair of machines if they share a common network
path. This may happen between machines in different locations or
even inside a datacenter with a number of servers hosting virtual
machines. Thus, the traffic profile can be shifted from small to
larger packets, reducing the network overhead and the number of
packets per second to be managed by intermediate routers.
This document describes Simplemux, a protocol able to encapsulate a
number of packets belonging to different protocols into a single
packet. Small headers (separators) are added at the beginning of
each multiplexed packet, including some flags, the packet length and
a "Protocol" field. This allows the inclusion of a number of packets
belonging to different protocols (the "multiplexed packets") on a
packet of another protocol (the "tunneling protocol").
In order to reduce the overhead, the size of the multiplexing headers
is kept very low (it may be a single byte when multiplexing packets
of small size).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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/.
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
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 5, 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Existing multiplexing protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Benefits of multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Description of the scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Protocol description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The high amount of small packets present in nowaday's networks
results in a low efficiency, when the size of the headers and the
payload are in the same order of magnitude. In some situations,
multiplexing (i.e. aggragating) a number of small packets into a
bigger one is desirable in order to improve the efficiency. For
example, a number of small packets can be sent together between a
pair of machines if they share a common network path. This may
happen between machines in different locations or even inside a
datacenter with a number of servers hosting virtual machines. Thus,
the traffic profile can be shifted from small to larger packets, thus
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
reducing the network overhead and the number of packets per second to
be managed by intermediate routers.
This document describes Simplemux, a protocol able to encapsulate a
number of packets belonging to different protocols into a single
packet. This can be useful e.g. for grouping small packets and thus
reducing the number of packets per second in a network.
Simplemux is a generic multiplexing protocol, i.e. it can be used to
aggregate a number of packets belonging to a protocol, on a single
packet belonging to other (or the same) protocol.
In this document we will talk about the "multiplexed" protocol, and
the "tunneling" protocol, being Simplemux the "multiplexing"
protocol. The "external header" will be the one of the "tunneling"
protocol (see the figure (Figure 1))
+--------------------------------+
| Multiplexed Packet | Multiplexed protocol
+--------------------------------+
| Simplemux | Multiplexing protocol
+--------------------------------+
| Tunneling header | Tunneling protocol
+--------------------------------+
Figure 1
As an example, if a number of small IPv6 packets have to travel over
an IPv4 network, they can be multiplexed and put into a single IPv4
packet. In this case, IPv4 is the "tunneling" protocol and IPv6 is
the "multiplexed" protocol. The IPv4 header is called in this case
the "tunneling" or the "external" header. The simplified scheme of
this packet would be:
|IPv4 hdr||Simplemux hdr|IPv6 packet||Simplemux hdr|IPv6 packet||...|
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
1.2. Existing multiplexing protocols
Different multiplexing protocols have been approved by the IETF in
the past:
o TMux [RFC1692]
TMux is able to combine multiple short transport segments,
independent of application type, and send them between a server and
host pair. As stated in the reference, "The TMux protocol is
intended to optimize the transmission of large numbers of small data
packets. In particular, communication load is not measured only in
bits per seconds but also in packets per seconds, and in many
situation the latter is the true performance limit, not the former.
The proposed multiplexing is aimed at alleviating this situation."
A TMux message appears as:
|IP hdr||TMux hdr|Transport segment||TMux hdr|Transport segment||...|
Therefore, the Transport Segment is not an entire IP packet, since it
does not include the IP header.
TMux works "between a server and host pair," so it multiplexes a
number of segments between the same pair of machines. However, there
are scenarios where a number of low-efficiency flows share a common
path, but they do not travel between the same pair of machines.
o PPPMux [RFC3153]
PPPMux "sends multiple PPP encapsulated packets in a single PPP
frame. As a result, the PPP overhead per packet is reduced." Thus,
it is able to multiplex complete IP packets, using separators.
However, the use of PPPMux requires the use of PPP and L2TP in order
to multiplex a number of packets together, as done in TCRTP
[RFC4170]. Thus, it introduces more overhead and complexity.
An IP packet including a number of them using PPPMux appears as:
|IP hdr|L2TP hdr|PPP hdr||PPPMux hdr|packet||PPPMux hdr|packet||...|
The scheme proposed by PPPMux is similar to the Compound-Frames of
PPP LCP Extensions [RFC1570]. The key differences are that PPPMux is
more efficient and that it allows concatenation of variable sized
frames.
***
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
The definition of a protocol able to multiplex complete packets,
avoiding the need of other protocols as e.g. PPP is seen as
convenient. The multiplexed packets can be of any kind, since a
"Protocol Number" field can be added to each of them. Not all the
packets multiplexed together must belong to the same protocol. The
general scheme of Simplemux is:
|tunnel hdr||Simplemux hdr|packet||Simplemux hdr|packet||...|
The Simplemux header includes the "Protocol Number" field, so it
permits the multiplexing of different kinds of packets in the same
bundle.
In this document, we will also refer to the Simplemux header with the
terms "separator," "Simplemux separator" or "mux separator". In the
figures we will also use the abbreviation "Smux".
When applied to IP packets, the scheme of a multiplexed packet
becomes:
|tunnel hdr||Simplemux hdr|IP packet||Simplemux hdr|IP packet||...|
1.3. Benefits of multiplexing
The benefits of multiplexing are:
- Tunneling a number of packets together. If a number of packets
have to be tunneled through a network segment, they can be
multiplexed and then sent together using a single external header.
This will avoid the need for adding a tunneling header to each of the
packets, thus reducing the overhead.
- Reduction of the amount of packets per second in the network. It
is desirable for two main reasons: first, network equipment has a
limitation in terms of the number of packets per second it can
manage, i.e. many devices are not able to send small packets back to
back due to processing delay.
- Bandwidth reduction. The presence of high rates of tiny packets
translates into an inefficient usage of network resources, so there
is a need for mechanisms able to reduce the overhead introduced by
low-efficiency flows. When combined with header compression, as done
in TCRTP [RFC4170] multiplexing may produce significant bandwidth
savings, which are interesting for network operators, since they may
alleviate the traffic load in their networks.
- Energy savings: a lower amount of packets per second will reduce
energy consumption in network equipment since, according to [Bolla],
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
internal packet processing engines and switching fabric require 60%
and 18% of the power consumption of high-end routers respectively.
Thus, reducing the number of packets to be managed and switched will
reduce the overall energy consumption. The measurements deployed in
[Chabarek]on commercial routers corroborate this. A study using
different packet sizes was presented, and the tests with big packets
showed that energy consumption gets reduced, since a non-negligible
amount of energy is associated to header processing tasks, and not
only to the sending of the packet itself.
Some tests measuring the benefits of Simplemux were published in
[Saldana].
2. Description of the scenario
Simplemux works between a pair of machines. It creates a tunnel
between an "ingress" and an "egress". They MAY be the endpoints of
the communication, but they MAY also be middleboxes able to multiplex
packets belonging to different flows. Different mechanisms MAY be
used in order to classify flows according to some criteria (sharing a
common path, kind of service, etc.) and to select the flows to be
multiplexed and sent to the egress (see Figure 2).
+-------+
| | +---------+ +---------+
| | ---> |Simplemux| _ _ |Simplemux| -->
|classif| ---> | ingress | ===> ( ` )_ ===> | egress | -->
| | +---------+ ( Network `) +---------+
| | --------------------> (_ (_ . _) _) ----------------->
+-------+
<--------Simplemux-------->
Figure 2
3. Protocol description
A Simplemux packet consists of:
- An external header that is used as the tunneling header for the
whole packet.
- A series of pairs "Simplemux header" + "packet" of the multiplexed
protocol.
This is the scheme of a Simplemux packet:
|tun hdr||Simplemux hdr|packet||Simplemux hdr|packet||...|
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
The Simplemux header has two different forms: one for the "First
Simplemux header," and another one for the rest of the Simplemux
headers (called "Non-first Simplemux headers"):
o First Simplemux header (after the tunneling header, and before the
first multiplexed packet):
In order to allow the multiplexing of packets of any length, the
number of bytes expressing the length is variable, and a field called
"Length Extension" (LXT, one bit) is used to flag if the current byte
is the last one including length information. This is the structure
of a First Simplemux header:
|SPB(1 bit)|LXT(1 bit)|length (6 bits)||LXT(1 bit)|length (7
bits)||...||Protocol (8 bits)|
- Single Protocol Bit (SPB, one bit) only appears in the first
Simplemux header. It is set to 1 if all the multiplexed packets
belong to the same protocol (in this case, the "Protocol" field will
only appear in the first Simplemux header). It is set to 0 when each
packet MAY belong to a different protocol.
- Length Extension (LXT, one bit) is 0 if the current byte is the
last byte where the length of the first packet is included, and 1 in
other case.
- Length (LEN, 6, 13, 20, etc. bits): This is the length of the
multiplexed packet (in bytes), not including the length field. If
the length of the multiplexed packet is less than 64 bytes (less than
or equal to 63 bytes), the first LXT is set to 0 and the 6 bits of
the length field are the length of the multiplexed packet. If the
length of the multiplexed packet is equal or greater than 64 bytes,
additional bytes are added. The first bit of each of the added bytes
is the LXT. If LXT is set to 1, it means that there is an additional
byte for expressing the length. This allows to multiplex packets of
any length (see the next figures).
- Protocol (8 bits) is the Protocol field of the multiplexed packet,
according to IANA "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers."
As an example, a First Simplemux header before a packet smaller than
64 (2^6) bytes would be 2 bytes long:
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|L| | |
|P|X| Length | Protocol |
|B|T| (6 bits) | (8 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^
0
Figure 3
A First Simplemux header before a packet with a length greater or
equal to 64 bytes, and smaller than 8192 bytes (2^13) will be 3 bytes
long:
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|L| |L| | |
|P|X| Length 1 |X| Length 2 | Protocol |
|B|T| (6 bits) |T| (7 bits) | (8 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^ ^
1 0
Figure 4
In this case, the length of the packet will be the number expressed
by the concatenation of the bits of Length 1 - Length 2 (total 13
bits). Length 1 includes the 6 most significant bits and Length 2
the 7 less significant bits.
A First Simplemux header before a packet with a length greater of
equal to 8192 bytes, and smaller than 1048576 bytes (2^20) would be 4
bytes long:
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|L| |L| |L| | |
|P|X| Length 1 |X| Length 2 |X| Length 3 | Protocol |
|B|T| (6 bits) |T| (7 bits) |T| (7 bits) | (8 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^ ^ ^
1 1 0
Figure 5
In this case, the length of the packet will be the number expressed
by the concatenation of the bits of Length 1 - Length 2 - Length 3
(total 20 bits). Length 1 includes the 6 most significant bits and
Length 3 the less 7 significant bits.
More bytes can be added to the length if required, using the same
scheme: 1 LXT byte plus 7 bits for expressing the length.
o Subsequent (Non-first) Simplemux headers (before the other
packets):
The Non-first Simplemux headers also employ a format allowing the
multiplexing of packets of any length, so the number of bytes
expressing the length is variable, and the field Length Extension
(LXT, one bit) is used to flag if the current byte is the last one
including length information. This is the structure of a Non-first
Simplemux header:
|LXT(1 bit)|length (7 bits)||LXT(1 bit)|length (7
bits)||...||Protocol (8 bits, optional)|
- Length Extension (LXT, one bit) is 0 if the current byte is the
last byte where the length of the packet is included, and 1 in other
case.
- Length (LEN, 7, 14, 21, etc. bits): This is the length of the
multiplexed packet (in bytes), not including the length field. If
the length of the multiplexed packet is less than 128 bytes (less
than or equal to 127 bytes), LXT is set to 0 and the 7 bits of the
length field represent the length of the multiplexed packet. If the
length of the multiplexed packet is greater than 127 bytes,
additional bytes are added. The first bit of each of the added bytes
is the LXT. If LXT is set to 1, it means that there is an additional
byte for expressing the length. This allows to multiplex packets of
any length (see the next figures).
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
- Protocol (8 bits) is the Protocol field of the multiplexed packet,
according to IANA "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers". It only
appears in Non-first headers if the Single Protocol Bit (SPB) of the
First Simplemux header is set to 1.
As an example, a Non-first Simplemux header before a packet smaller
than 128 bytes, when the protocol bit has been set to 0 in the first
header, would be 1 byte long:
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| |
|X| Length |
|T| (7 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^
0
SPB = 0 in the first header
Figure 6
A Non-first Simplemux header before a packet witha a length greater
or equal to 128 bytes, and smaller than 16384 (2^14), when the
protocol bit has been set to 0 in the first header, will be 2 bytes
long:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| |L| |
|X| Length 1 |X| Length 2 |
|T| (7 bits) |T| (7 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^ ^
1 0
SPB = 0 in the first header
Figure 7
A Non-first Simplemux header before a packet with a length greater or
equal to 16384 bytes, and smaller than 2097152 bytes (2^21), when the
protocol bit has been set to 0 in the first header, will be 3 bytes
long:
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| |L| |L| |
|X| Length 1 |X| Length 2 |X| Length 3 |
|T| (7 bits) |T| (7 bits) |T| (7 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^ ^ ^
1 1 0
SPB = 0 in the first header
Figure 8
In this case, the length of the packet will be the number expressed
by the concatenation of the bits of Length 1 - Length 2 - Length 3
(total 21 bits). Length 1 includes the 7 most significant bits and
Length 3 the 7 less significant bits.
More bytes can be added to the length if required, using the same
scheme: 1 LXT byte plus 7 bits for expressing the length.
A Non-first Simplemux header before a packet smaller than 128 bytes,
when the protocol bit has been set to 1 in the first header, will be
2 bytes long:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| | |
|X| Length | Protocol |
|T| (7 bits) | (8 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^
0
SPB = 1 in the first header
Figure 9
A Non-first Simplemux header before a packet with a length greater or
equal to 128 bytes, and smaller than 16384 (2^14), when the protocol
bit has been set to 1 in the first header, will be 3 bytes long:
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| |L| | |
|X| Length 1 |X| Length 2 | Protocol |
|T| (7 bits) |T| (7 bits) | (8 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^ ^
1 0
SPB = 1 in the first header
Figure 10
A Non-first Simplemux header before a packet with a length greater of
equal to 16384 bytes, and smaller than 2097152 bytes (2^21), when the
protocol bit has been set to 1 in the first header, will be 4 bytes
long:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| |L| |L| | |
|X| Length 1 |X| Length 2 |X| Length 3 | Protocol |
|T| (7 bits) |T| (7 bits) |T| (7 bits) | (8 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^ ^ ^
1 1 0
SPB = 1 in the first header
Figure 11
In this case, the length of the packet will be the number expressed
by the concatenation of the bits of Length 1 - Length 2 - Length 3
(total 21 bits). Length 1 includes the 7 most significant bits and
Length 3 the 7 less significant bits.
More bytes can be added to the length if required, using the same
scheme: 1 LXT byte plus 7 bits for expressing the length.
These would be some examples of the whole bundles:
Case 1: All the packets belong to the same protocol: The first
Simplemux header would be 2 or 3 bytes (for usual packet sizes), and
the other Simplemux headers would be 1 or 2 bytes. For small packets
(< 128 bytes), the Simplemux header would only require one byte.
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
|tun||1|0|len|Protocol|pkt||0|len|pkt||1|len|0|len|pkt||...|
| | | |
v v v v
(6 bits) (7 bits) (14 bits)
|tun||1|1|len|0|len|Protocol|pkt||0|len|pkt||1|len|0|len|pkt||...|
| | | | |
v v v v v
(13 bits) (7 bits) (14 bits)
Figure 12
Case 2: Each packet may belong to a different protocol: All the
Simplemux headers would be 2 or 3 bytes (for usual packet sizes).
|tun||0|0|len|Prot|pkt||0|len|Prot|pkt||1|len|0|len|Prot|pkt||...|
| | | |
v v v v
(6 bits) (7 bits) (14 bits)
|tun||0|1|len|0|len|Prot|pkt||0|len|Prot|pkt||1|len|0|len|Prot|pkt||...|
| | | | |
v v v v v
(13 bits) (7 bits) (14 bits)
Figure 13
4. Acknowledgements
This work has been partially funded by the EU H2020 Wi-5 project
(Grant Agreement no: 644262), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness project TIN2015-64770-R, in cooperation with the
European Regional Development Fund (TIN2016-76770-R) and Gobierno de
Aragon and FEDER "Construyendo Europa desde Aragon" (Research Group
T31_17R).
5. IANA Considerations
A protocol number for Simplemux should be requested to IANA.
As a provisional solution for IP networks, the ingress and the egress
optimizers may agree on a UDP port, and use IP/UDP as the
multiplexing protocol.
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
6. Security Considerations
Simplemux protocol has been developed in such a way that packet
aggregation and security can be simultaneously applied to the same
traffic flows, i.e. a single security header could protect a number
of packets belonging to different flows.
As a consequence, the overall efficiency could be improved, as the
number of security headers could be reduced from N to 1 (being N the
number of multiplexed packets).
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC1570] Simpson, W., Ed., "PPP LCP Extensions", RFC 1570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1570, January 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1570>.
[RFC1692] Cameron, P., Crocker, D., Cohen, D., and J. Postel,
"Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)", RFC 1692,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1692, August 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1692>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3153] Pazhyannur, R., Ali, I., and C. Fox, "PPP Multiplexing",
RFC 3153, DOI 10.17487/RFC3153, August 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3153>.
[RFC4170] Thompson, B., Koren, T., and D. Wing, "Tunneling
Multiplexed Compressed RTP (TCRTP)", BCP 110, RFC 4170,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4170, November 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4170>.
7.2. Informative References
[Bolla] Bolla, R., Bruschi, R., Davoli, F., and F. Cucchietti,
"Energy Efficiency in the Future Internet: A Survey of
Existing Approaches and Trends in Energy-Aware Fixed
Network Infrastructures", IEEE Communications Surveys and
Tutorials vol.13, no.2, pp.223,244, 2011.
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Simplemux March 2019
[Chabarek]
Chabarek, J., Sommers, J., Barford, P., Estan, C., Tsiang,
D., and S. Wright, "Power Awareness in Network Design and
Routing", INFOCOM 2008. The 27th Conference on Computer
Communications. IEEE pp.457,465, 2008.
[Saldana] Saldana, J., Forcen, I., Fernandez-Navajas, J., and J.
Ruiz-Mas, "Improving Network Efficiency with Simplemux",
IEEE CIT 2015, International Conference on Computer and
Information Technology pp. 446-453, 26-28 October 2015,
Liverpool, UK., 2015.
Authors' Addresses
Jose Saldana
University of Zaragoza
Dpt. IEC Ada Byron Building
Zaragoza 50018
Spain
Phone: +34 976 762 698
Email: jsaldana@unizar.es
Julian Fernandez Navajas
University of Zaragoza
Dpt. IEC Ada Byron Building
Zaragoza 50018
Spain
Phone: +34 976 761 963
Email: navajas@unizar.es
Jose Ruiz Mas
University of Zaragoza
Dpt. IEC Ada Byron Building
Zaragoza 50018
Spain
Phone: +34 976 762 158
Email: jruiz@unizar.es
Saldana, et al. Expires September 5, 2019 [Page 15]