[tcmtf] Scenarios or Use Cases?
Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 13:08 UTC
Return-Path: <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2291A02AD for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:08:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ooHkq2_xi7C0 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22c.google.com (mail-qc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E4A1A006B for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id i8so1045577qcq.3 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:08:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=3J23PodVagTF2H5IzLZqo2HiOeVw4BHRrvt5t4bL630=; b=QnshCu6Z3FT6teDzN0lmQiRFbI5u7sdVadhDO6vn7V0PmoFvowomZHptmEdCViNA8n 91trPJSf9zvD6zLoKqVfGJC6nhBMVcUASbEMEBKtvIqph5n9joHGQw8opGbrBqPMxXMR +T4XzpHIWjFUCnyxxdYo8/Fil+VNJz461ygC2EWTuHh6qL6+Okh5TIYSz7rMbHym9Q1a wLX6nnaUXRxJ9/T0z1w7P49soWS0DURVFzDNEsUk2nEFG6AahsleHnkDVdc4TThqDzTF BmpylsV9D63atIUMVu0eC0bL9iblc8EeOnAl5qzMTdyOCRiZFoWvI8D+lr+xCqDO7b3P a2zw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.136.195 with SMTP id s3mr1991635qat.95.1394024931461; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 05:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.101.67 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:08:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+qGm=8NKTGKa5XwQ8aiGFnhNmBwgLGu3py8o_a2X+djxU6-rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: tcmtf@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcmtf/0LvnwdEvg3WFswdiGRRYqdVUhJc
Subject: [tcmtf] Scenarios or Use Cases?
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:08:58 -0000
There was some discussion of this at the BOF in IETF 89. Re-reading, there are in fact use cases embedded in the scenarios, but as it stands I think the section mixes the use cases that motivate users with the description of where in a network it might be deployed. Here's the relevant section of the I-D: 1.4.1. Multidomain scenario In this scenario, the TCMT-TF tunnel goes all the way from one network edge (the place where users are attached to the ISP) to another, and therefore it can cross several domains. As shown in Figure 1, the optimization is performed before the packets leave the domain of an ISP; the traffic crosses the Internet tunnelized, and the packets are rebuilt in the second domain. _ _ _ _ _ _ ( ' ) _ _ _ ( ' )_ _ ( +------+ )') ( ' )_ ( +------+ ') -->(_ -|TCM-IO|--- _) ---> ( ) ') ----->(_-|TCM-EO|--_)--> ( +------+ _) (_ (_ . _) _) ( +------+ _) (_ _ _ _) (_ _ ( _) _) ISP 1 Internet ISP 2 <------------------TCM-TF--------------------> Figure 1 Note that this is not from border to border (where ISPs connect to the Internet, which could be covered with specialized links) but from an ISP to another (e.g. managing all traffic from individual users arriving at a Game Provider, regardless users' location). Some examples of this could be: o An ISP could place a TCM optimizer in its aggregation network, in order to tunnel all the packets of a service, sending them to the application provider, who would rebuild the packets before forwarding them to the application server. This would result in savings for both actors. o A service provider (e.g., an online gaming company) could be allowed to place a TCM optimizer in the aggregation network of an ISP, being able to optimize all the flows of a game or service. Another TCM optimizer would rebuild these packets once they arrive to the network of the provider. 1.4.2. Single domain TCM-TF is only activated inside an ISP, from the edge to border, inside the network operator. The geographical scope and network depth of TCM-TF activation could be on demand, according to traffic conditions. If we consider the residential users of a real-time interactive application (e.g., VoIP, an online game generating small packets) in a town or a district, a TCM optimizing module can be included in network devices, in order to group packets with the same destination. As shown in Figure 2, depending on the number of users of the application, the packets could be grouped at different levels in DSL fixed network scenarios, at gateway level in LTE mobile network scenarios or even in other ISP edge routers. TCM-TF may also be applied for fiber residential accesses, and in 2G/3G mobile networks. This would reduce bandwidth requirements in the provider aggregation network +------+ N users -|TCM-IO|\ +------+ \ \ _ _ _ _ +------+ \--> ( ' )_ +------+ ( ' )_ M users -|TCM-IO|------> ( ) ') --|TCM-EO|--> ( ) ') +------+ / ->(_ (_ . _) _) +------+ (_ (_ . _) _) / +------+ / ISP Internet P users -|TCM-IO|/ +------+ <------------TCM-TF--------------> Figure 2 At the same time, the ISP would implement TCM-TF capabilities within its own MPLS network in order to optimize internal network resources: optimizing modules could be embedded in the Label Edge Routers of the network. In that scenario MPLS would be the "tunneling" layer, being the tunnels the paths defined by the MPLS labels and avoiding the use of other tunneling protocols. Finally, some networks use cRTP [cRTP] in order to obtain bandwidth savings on the access link, but as a counterpart it consumes considerable CPU resources on the aggregation router. In these cases, by means of TCM, instead of only saving bandwidth on the access link, it could also be saved across the ISP network, without the CPU impact on the aggregation router. 1.4.3. Private solutions End users can also optimize traffic end-to-end from network borders. TCM-TF is used to connect private networks geographically apart (e.g. corporation headquarters and subsidiaries), without the ISP being aware (or having to manage) those flows, as shown in Figure 3, where two different locations are connected through a tunnel traversing the Internet or another network. _ _ _ _ _ _ ( ' )_ +------+ ( ' )_ +------+ ( ' )_ ( ) ') --|TCM-IO|-->( ) ') --|TCM-EO|-->( ) ') (_ (_ . _) _) +------+ (_ (_ . _) _) +------+ (_ (_ . _)_) Location 1 ISP/Internet Location 2 <-----------TCM-TF----------> Figure 3 Some examples of these scenarios: o The case of an enterprise with a number of distributed central offices, in which an appliance could be placed next to the access router, being able to optimize traffic flows with a shared origin and destination. Thus, a number of remote desktop sessions to the same server could be optimized, or a number of VoIP calls between two offices could also require less bandwidth and fewer packets per second. In some cases the tunnel is already included for security reasons, so the additional overhead of TCM-TF is lower. o An Internet cafe, which is suitable of having many users of the same application (e.g., VoIP, a game) sharing the same access link. Internet cafes are very popular in countries with relatively low access speeds in households, where home computer penetration is usually low as well. In many of these countries, bandwidth can become a serious limitation for this kind of business, so TCM-TF savings may become interesting for their viability. o Community networks [topology_CNs] (typically deployed in rural areas or in developing countries), in which a number of people in the same geographical place share their connections in a cooperative way, and a number of wireless hops are required in order to reach a router connected to the Internet. o Satellite communication links that often manage the bandwidth by limiting the transmission rate, measured in packets per second (pps), to and from the satellite. Applications like VoIP that generate a large number of small packets can easily fill the maximum number of pps slots, limiting the throughput across such links. As an example, a G.729a voice call generates 50 pps at 20 ms packetization time. If the satellite transmission allows 1,500 pps, the number of simultaneous voice calls is limited to 30. This results in poor utilization of the satellite link's bandwidth as well as places a low bound on the number of voice calls that can utilize the link simultaneously. TCM optimization of small packets into one packet for transmission would improve the efficiency. o In a M2M/SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) context, TCM optimization can be applied when a satellite link is used for collecting the data of a number of sensors. M2M terminals are normally equipped with sensing devices which can interface to proximity sensor networks through wireless connections. The terminal can send the collected sensing data using a satellite link connecting to a satellite gateway, which in turn will forward the M2M/SCADA data to the to the processing and control center through Internet. The size of typical M2M application transaction depends on the specific service and it may vary from a minimum of 20 bytes (e.g., tracking and metering in private security) to about 1,000 bytes (e.g., video-surveillance). In this context, TCM-TF concepts can be also applied to allow a more efficient use of the available satellite link capacity, matching the requirements demanded by some M2M services. If the case of large sensor deployments is considered, where proximity sensor networks transmit data through different satellite terminals, the use of compression algorithms already available in current satellite systems to reduce the overhead introduced by UDP and IPv6 protocols is certainly desirable. In addition to this, tunneling and multiplexing functions available from TCM-TF allows extending compression functionality throughout the rest the network, to eventually reach the processing and control centers. o Desktop or application sharing where the traffic from the server to the client typically consists of the delta of screen updates. Also, the standard for remote desktop sharing emerging for WebRTC in the RTCWEB Working Group is: {something}/SCTP/UDP (Stream Control Transmission Protocol [SCTP]). In this scenario, SCTP/UDP could be used in other cases: chatting, file sharing and applications related to WebRTC peers. There could be hundreds of clients at a site talking to a server located at a datacenter over a WAN. Compressing, multiplexing and tunneling this traffic could save WAN bandwidth and potentially improve latency. 1.4.4. Mixed scenarios Different combinations of the previous scenarios can be considered. Agreements between different companies can be established in order to save bandwidth and to reduce packets per second. As an example, Figure 4 shows a game provider that wants to TCM-optimize its connections by establishing associations between different TCM-IO/EOs placed in the game server and several TCM-IO/EOs placed in the networks of different ISPs (agreements between the game provider and each ISP would be necessary). In every ISP, the TCM-IO/EO would be placed in the most adequate point (actually several TCM-IO/EOs could exist per ISP) in order to aggregate enough number of users. _ _ N users ( ' )_ +---+ ( ) ') |TCM|->(_ (_ . _) +---+ ISP 1 \ _ _ \ _ _ _ _ _ M users ( ' )_ \ ( ' ) ( ' ) ( ' ) +---+ ( ) ') \ ( ) ') ( ) ') +---+ ( ) ') |TCM|->(_ (_ ._)---- (_ (_ . _) ->(_ (_ . _)->|TCM|->(_ (_ . _) +---+ ISP 2 / Internet ISP 4 +---+ Game Provider _ _ / ^ O users ( ' )_ / | +---+ ( ) ') / +---+ |TCM|->(_ (_ ._) P users->|TCM| +---+ ISP 3 +---+ Figure 4
- [tcmtf] Scenarios or Use Cases? Alexander Harrowell
- Re: [tcmtf] Scenarios or Use Cases? Jose Saldana