[multipathtcp] One-way delay-aware scheduling
Alexander Frömmgen <alexander.froemmgen@kom.tu-darmstadt.de> Mon, 02 April 2018 17:07 UTC
Return-Path: <alexander.froemmgen@kom.tu-darmstadt.de>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46975126D45 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.992
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.992 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HEADER_CTYPE_ONLY=0.717, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wfsynd4BDijJ for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lnx500.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de (mailout.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de [130.83.156.225]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A617012D778 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kommail.kom.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de (kommail.kom.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de [130.83.198.181]) by lnx500.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/HRZ/PMX) with ESMTP id w32H5tuO002126; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 19:05:56 +0200 (envelope-from alexander.froemmgen@kom.tu-darmstadt.de)
Received: by kommail.kom.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de (Postfix, from userid 998) id D2CE02A073A; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 19:06:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Alexander Frömmgen <alexander.froemmgen@kom.tu-darmstadt.de>
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 19:06:53 +0200
Message-ID: <009301d3caa5$00872db0$01958910$@kom.tu-darmstadt.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0094_01D3CAB5.C413CE40"
Content-Language: de
Thread-Index: AdPKpK0puXnf5OGhQ/2R28S9bpSZew==
X-PMX-TU: seen v1.2 by 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2018.4.2.165716
X-PMX-RELAY: outgoing
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/4zgE6Jk1QjUHaNr0gNvNKEbOn-I>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 10:17:04 -0700
Subject: [multipathtcp] One-way delay-aware scheduling
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/multipathtcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 17:08:32 -0000
Hi all, I just noticed that there was a discussion about one-way delay-aware scheduling at the last IETF meeting. During our work on ProgMP[0], we implemented one-way delay-aware MPTCP scheduling in combination with active probing of subflows [1]. Parts of the source are already available and the remaining stuff will follow soon. In general, our experiments show that it works J In particular, we can reach application-layer round-trip times below the minimum subflow round-trip time. However, we do not really know the real world delay asymmetries. If you visit http://amiusingmptcp.de with MPTCP and multiple subflows, the page will show your round-trip time statistics as well as one-way delay estimates. This might help us to gather some real world delay distributions. Please contact me if you experience problems or measurement artefacts with this page. Kind regards, Alexander [0] https://progmp.net [1] https://progmp.net/thinStreams.html
- [multipathtcp] One-way delay-aware scheduling Alexander Frömmgen