Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP carrying UDP

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 24 November 2016 10:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 6C2A91296F9 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 02:32:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 shOibIOKg9EI for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 02:32:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A9EE1297EA for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 02:32:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 2B612C06CA; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:32:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.3]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B2C46200AB; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:32:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM5D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::9898:741c:bc1d:258d%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:32:10 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be" <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>, =?utf-8?B?U8OpYmFzdGllbiBOb2Vs?= <noel@multitel.be>, "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] MPTCP carrying UDP
Thread-Index: AQHSRZL0TCWeYq4nWUq+XkXL99v87KDn7iVw
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:32:09 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DB856B@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <4d11a19b2b6644848ce79f55cdbd6ab5@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <20161123120926.7ed52bd4@sne-UX31E> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DB7E96@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <b6958439-0495-45f1-8b12-28dcda15ba74@uclouvain.be>
In-Reply-To: <b6958439-0495-45f1-8b12-28dcda15ba74@uclouvain.be>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/g5RQ8H8_HIqXMfwNuZIAXzMPZpQ>
Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP carrying UDP
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:32:34 -0000

Hi Olivier,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Olivier Bonaventure [mailto:Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be]
> Envoyé : mercredi 23 novembre 2016 15:08
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Sébastien Noel; philip.eardley@bt.com
> Cc : multipathtcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP carrying UDP
> 
> Med,
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> >> Sébastien Noel
> >> Envoyé : mercredi 23 novembre 2016 12:09
> >> À : philip.eardley@bt.com
> >> Cc : multipathtcp@ietf.org
> >> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP carrying UDP
> >>
> >> Phil,
> >>
> >>> Do people have any experimental results /experiences they could share
> of
> >>> running UDP applications over MPTCP sub-flows?  Would be interested to
> >> hear
> >>> about the issues.
> >>> I guess VoIP and Quic would be the most interesting ones.
> >>
> >> To understand the interactions between QUIC and an underlying MPTCP
> >> transport, we performed some experiments by running QUIC over OpenVPN
> >> that runs itself over an MPTCP connection. This is the closest scenario
> >> to what you are discussing based on existing open-source software.
> >
> > [Med] The schema we are investigating does not include this cascaded
> layers. It is only UDP payload transported in plain MPTCP connections.
> 
> 
> The cascading layers increase the CPU and byte overhead, but the
> interactions between the congestion control schemes and the reliablity
> mechanisms remains.

[Med] My point is that we need to isolate the impact of those cascaded layers on the CPU/Performance efficiency from pure interactions between the CCs.  

 In the experiment, the CPU is not a concern given
> that PCs were used as routers. The byte overhead influences the maximum
> efficiency of the solution but not how it degrades when there is latency
> or losses. The degration comes form the coupling between the congestion
> control and the reliability mechanisms of both QUIC and MPTCP.
> 
> >> OpenVPN includes some framing to carry UDP and
> >> encryption/authentication. These mechanisms add CPU overhead and byte
> >> overhead compared to transporting QUIC over a plain MPTCP connection,
> >> but this does not change the results of the experiments.
> >>
> >
> > [Med] I wouldn't drop that conclusion as the overall performance depends
> also on the overhead prepended to packets to be injected over the tunnel.
> >
> > Putting that aside, can you please indicate how the traffic is
> distributed among available subflows? FWIW, the target traffic
> distribution policy for the hybrid access is to use the fixed line first,
> and then grab some resources from the cellular link if needed. So the
> target objective is not 1+1!
> >
> 
> That's a policy issue. The experiment was whether both links can be used
> efficiently when running QUIC over MPTCP to transport a long file. If
> your policy delays the utilisation of the second link when the first is
> full, then you will get even lower performance since MPTCP will delay
> the utilisation of the subflows.

[Med] It is a policy, that's true... but it is a key point to decide what are acceptable performance or not. Assuming 1+1 is putting the bar too high for the deployments plans I'm aware of. 

[SNIP]

> >>
> >> As you can see, with QUIC over MPTCP sub-flows, performance seems to
> >> drop as soon as you have an unreliable medium or as soon as you have
> >> latency
> >>
> >> The sames tests were performed again, but this time with HTTP over
> >> end-to-end MPTCTP, to have a point of comparison
> >
> > [Med] When do you say "end-to-end MPTCP" do you mean MPTCP is enabled by
> the client and the server?
> >
> 
> Yes.

[Med] I wouldn't use that as a reference. In order to have comparable results the reference IMHO is to have the same cascade layers for TCP flows that will be proxied into MPTCP connections. 

 Given our experience with TCP/MPTCP proxies, the result would have
> been the same with TCP/MPTCP proxies running on the two routers, but
> these proxies could not be integrated in this setup for practical reasons.

[Med] It would be more interesting if similar setup conditions are used to have fair comparisons.