Return-Path: X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BABF21F87E7; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:59:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nTy9V1FqEL8e; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5F321F8741; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jsaldanapc (n33d97.cs.unibo.it [130.136.33.97]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id q647xrpN003734; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 09:59:53 +0200 From: "Jose Saldana" To: Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 09:59:54 +0200 Message-ID: <001c01cd59ba$ff81acd0$fe850670$@unizar.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01CD59CB.C30C2A80" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Content-language: es Thread-index: Ac1ZuJfyVhDrVwqUSQq4P4sJpGVh+A== X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter Cc: afarrel@juniper.net, tsvwg@ietf.org Subject: [mpls] Asking for feedback about draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 07:59:52 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01CD59CB.C30C2A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all, =20 I am one of the authors of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/, which is = being discussed in the Transport Area Working Group. Adrian Farrel has = suggested me to ask for your feedback in order to take a new step with the draft. =20 The main idea of the draft is to combine standard protocols that provide compression, multiplexing, and tunneling over a network path for the = purpose of reducing the bandwidth used when multiple streams are carried over a path. =20 It was first thought for real-time flows, but it can also be applied to other ones. Some examples of use: =20 - Online "First Person Shooter" (FPS) games use UDP datagrams, and they = are one of the most "real-time" applications nowadays. Some examples: = Counter Strike, Halo, Quake. =20 - Online "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games" (MMORPG): = They use TCP, but can be considered "real-time", since the actions of the = players have to be transmitted very quickly to the server. It should be taken = into account that player vs player fights are one of the possible activities = of the game. Some examples: World of Warcraft (more than 10 million subscribers). =20 - TCP is also getting used for media delivery. For many reasons, such as avoiding firewalls, the standard IP/ UDP/ RTP protocol stack is = substituted in many cases by IP/ TCP/ HTTP/ FLV [3]. =20 - Another interesting scenario is satellite communication links. Multiplexing small packets into one packet for transmission would = improve the efficiency. Satellite links would also find it useful to multiplex = small TCP packets into one packet - this could be especially interesting for compressing TCP ACKs. =20 Now we are thinking about the inclusion of MPLS as another option for = the tunneling part, in addition to L2TP/IP. We have thought to add this subsection to the draft: ---------------- 2.4.2 MPLS tunneling =20 In some scenarios, mainly in operator=B4s core networks, the use of MPLS = is widely deployed as data transport method. The adoption of MPLS as = tunneling layer in that proposal intends to natively adapt TCMTF to those = transport networks. =20 In the same way that layer 3 tunnels, MPLS paths, identified by MPLS = labels, established between Label Edge Routers (LSRs) could be used to transport = the compressed payloads within an MPLS network. This way, multiplexing layer must be placed over MPLS layer. Note that, in this case, layer 3 tunnel headers should not be used, with the consequent data efficiency = improvement. --------------- =20 So the new scheme could be this one: =20 TCP UDP RTP/UDP | | | \ | / ------------------------------ \ | / Nothing or ROHC or ECRTP or IPHC header compressing layer | | ------------------------------ | PPPMUX or other mux protocols multiplexing layer | / \ ------------------------------ / \ / \ GRE or L2TP \ tunneling layer | MPLS | ------------------------------ IP =20 We don=92t think any modification in MPLS would be necessary, but your feedback will always be interesting. =20 Thank you very much, =20 Jose Saldana =20 ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01CD59CB.C30C2A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello all,

 

I am one of the authors of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/<= /span>, which is being discussed in the Transport = Area Working Group. Adrian Farrel has suggested me to ask for your = feedback in order to take a new step with the = draft.

 

The main idea of the draft is to combine standard protocols = that provide compression, multiplexing, and tunneling over a network = path for the purpose of reducing the bandwidth used when multiple = streams are carried over a path.

 

It was first thought for = real-time flows, but it can also be applied to other ones. Some examples = of use:

 

- Online "First Person Shooter" (FPS) games use = UDP datagrams, and they are one of the most "real-time" = applications nowadays. Some examples: Counter Strike, Halo, = Quake.

 

- Online "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing = Games" (MMORPG): They use TCP, but can be considered = "real-time", since the actions of the players have to be = transmitted very quickly to the server. It should be taken into account = that player vs player fights are one of the possible activities of the = game. Some examples: World of Warcraft (more than 10 million = subscribers).

 

- TCP is also getting used for media delivery. For many = reasons, such as avoiding firewalls, the standard IP/ UDP/ RTP protocol = stack is substituted in many cases by IP/ TCP/ HTTP/ FLV = [3].

 

- Another interesting scenario is satellite communication = links. Multiplexing small packets into one packet for transmission would = improve the efficiency. Satellite links would also find it useful to = multiplex small TCP packets into one packet - this could be especially = interesting for compressing TCP ACKs.

 

Now we are thinking about the = inclusion of MPLS as another option for the tunneling part, in addition = to L2TP/IP. We have thought to add this subsection to the = draft:

----------------

2.4.2 MPLS = tunneling

 

In some scenarios, mainly in operator=B4s core networks, = the use of MPLS is widely deployed as data transport method. The = adoption of MPLS as tunneling layer in that proposal intends to natively = adapt TCMTF to those transport networks.

 

In the same way that layer 3 = tunnels, MPLS paths, identified by MPLS labels, established between = Label Edge Routers (LSRs) could be used to transport the compressed = payloads within an MPLS network. This way, multiplexing layer must be = placed over MPLS layer. Note that, in this case, layer 3 tunnel headers = should not be used, with the consequent data efficiency = improvement.

---------------

 

So the new scheme could be this = one:

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 TCP=A0=A0=A0 UDP=A0 = RTP/UDP

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 \=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0 = /=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = ------------------------------

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = \=A0=A0 |=A0=A0 /

Nothing or ROHC or ECRTP or = IPHC=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 header compressing = layer

=A0=A0=A0=A0 = =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0|

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 ------------------------------

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = |

=A0=A0 = PPPMUX or other mux = protocols=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 multiplexing = layer

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = |

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 / = \=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= ------------------------------

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 /=A0=A0 = \

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 /=A0=A0=A0=A0 = \

=A0=A0 = GRE or L2TP=A0=A0=A0=A0 = \=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 tunneling layer

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 MPLS

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = |=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = ------------------------------

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = IP

 

We = don’t think any modification in MPLS would be necessary, but your = feedback will always be interesting.

 

Thank you very = much,

 

Jose Saldana

 

------=_NextPart_000_001D_01CD59CB.C30C2A80--