tcm-tf reference model
TRANSCRIPT
Jose Saldana ([email protected]) TCM-TF BOF, IETF87 Berlin, August 1st, 2013 1
TCM-TF Reference Model Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows (TCM-TF) draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05
Authors: Jose Saldana Dan Wing Julian Fernandez-Navajas Muthu A.M. Perumal Fernando Pascual Blanco
Contributing authors: Gonzalo Camarillo Michael A. Ramalho Jose Ruiz Mas Diego R Lopez David Florez Manuel Nunez Sanz Juan Antonio Castell Mirko Suznjevic
Intended status: Best Current Practice
2 TCM-TF Protocol stack
Three layers: 1. header Compression 2. Multiplexing 3. Tunneling IP IP IP
No compr. / ROHC / IPHC / ECRTP
PPPMux / Other
GRE / L2TP
IP
Compression layer
Multiplexing layer
Tunneling layer
Network Protocol
UDP
RTP
payload
UDPTCP
payloadpayload
MPLS
3
Different Protocols: TCP/IP UDP/IP RTP/UDP/IP ESP/IP
TCM-TF Protocol stack
IP IP IP
No compr. / ROHC / IPHC / ECRTP
PPPMux / Other
GRE / L2TP
IP
Compression layer
Multiplexing layer
Tunneling layer
Network Protocol
UDP
RTP
payload
UDPTCP
payloadpayload
MPLS
TCP, UDP, UDP/RTP
4 TCM-TF Protocol stack
IP IP IP
No compr. / ROHC / IPHC / ECRTP
PPPMux / Other
GRE / L2TP
IP
Compression layer
Multiplexing layer
Tunneling layer
Network Protocol
UDP
RTP
payload
UDPTCP
payloadpayload
MPLS
Different header compression algorithms: The most adequate one can be selected according to: - kind of traffic - scenario (loss, delay) - processing capacity, etc.
5 TCM-TF Protocol stack
IP IP IP
No compr. / ROHC / IPHC / ECRTP
PPPMux / Other
GRE / L2TP
IP
Compression layer
Multiplexing layer
Tunneling layer
Network Protocol
UDP
RTP
payload
UDPTCP
payloadpayload
MPLS
Different mux algorithms. Currently: PPPMux, but other ones could also be considered
6 TCM-TF Protocol stack
IP IP IP
No compr. / ROHC / IPHC / ECRTP
PPPMux / Other
GRE / L2TP
IP
Compression layer
Multiplexing layer
Tunneling layer
Network Protocol
UDP
RTP
payload
UDPTCP
payloadpayload
MPLS
Different tunneling algorithms. Currently: L2TPv3 Others: GRE, MPLS, etc
7 TCM-TF Protocol stack
Backwards compatibility with TCRTP (RFC4170, implemented in some places), which would become one of the TCM-TF options
IP IP IP
No compr. / ROHC / IPHC / ECRTP
PPPMux / Other
GRE / L2TP
IP
Compression layer
Multiplexing layer
Tunneling layer
Network Protocol
UDP
RTP
payload
UDPTCP
payloadpayload
MPLS
8 TMC-TF optimized packet examples
Five IPv4/UDP/RTP VoIP packets with two samples of 10 bytesη=100/300=33%
savingOne IPv4 TCMTF Packet multiplexing five two sample packetsη=100/161=62%
Four IPv6/UDP/RTP VoIP packets with two samples of 10 bytesη=80/240=33%
savingOne IPv6 TCMTF Packet multiplexing four two sample packetsη=80/161=49%
Seven IPv4/TCP client-to-server packets of World of Warcraft. E[P]=20bytes
One IPv4/TCMTF packet multiplexing seven client-to-server WoW packets
η=80/360=22%
η=80/175=45%saving
Five IPv6/TCP client-to-server packets of World of Warcraft. E[P]=20bytes
One IPv6/TCMTF packet multiplexing five client-to-server WoW packetsη=60/187=32%
saving
TCP ACKs without payload
η=60/360=16%
9 TMC-TF savings
Some remarks - We can reduce bandwidth and pps - Bandwidth savings are higher for IPv6 - Interesting for:
- Flexibility (traffic surges at certain moments or places) - Permanent optimization: satellite, access links in
developing countries - Tradeoff: we have to add a small delay. So we need to
establish some limits, depending on the service, the network status, etc.
10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
BW
sav
ing
Number of flows k
TCM-TF Bandwidth Saving VoIP (Pr. reduced header = 0.95)
Payload=10 bytes
Payload=20 bytes
Payload=30 bytes
TMC-TF savings for VoIP
"Evaluating the Influence of Multiplexing Schemes and Buffer Implementation on Perceived VoIP Conversation Quality," Computer Networks (Elsevier). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.02.004
52% bandwidth saved
Counterpart: multiplexing delay: 1 inter-packet time
11
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
BS
period (ms)
TCM-TF Bandwidth Saving UDP
20 players
15 players
10 players
5 players
TMC-TF savings for UDP UDP First Person Shooter (Counter Strike)
First Person Shooters: Can a Smarter Network Save Bandwidth without Annoying the Players?," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no.11, pp. 190-198, November 2011
Up to 30% bandwidth saved
Counterpart: multiplexing period
12 TMC-TF savings for TCP
TCP MMORPG (World of Warcraft)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
BS
period (ms)
Bandwidth Saving
100 players
50 players
20 players
10 players
Period 20ms (delay 10ms):
56% bandwidth saved
"Traffic Optimization for TCP-based Massive Multiplayer Online Games," Proc. International Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems SPECTS 2012, July 8-11, 2012, Genoa, Italy.
Asymptote 60%
13 TMC-TF pps reductions
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
50 RTP 20 RTP 10 RTP 50 TCMTF 20 TCMTF 10 TCMTF
Packets per second1 sample/packet2 samples/packet3 samples/packet
VoIP: From 2600 to 150 pps ÷17 factor
(G729, 2 samples per packet)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
native 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
period (ms)
Packets per second20 players15 players10 players5 players
FPS game: From 490 to 20 pps
÷ 24 factor
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
native 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
period (ms)
Packets per second100 players50 players20 players10 players
MMORPG game: From 940 to 25 pps
÷ 37 factor