[tcmtf] Improved description of the BOF proposal
"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Fri, 14 June 2013 10:52 UTC
Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 363FF21F9C64 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 03:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.446
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.152,
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 mRS2i8epqtb0 for
<tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 03:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by
ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F258121F9C65 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>;
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 03:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by
ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id r5EAqGbe015146;
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:52:16 +0200
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:52:23 +0200
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <005e01ce68ed$406f58e0$c14e0aa0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005F_01CE68FE.03F89E10"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac5o7Ey0jEmmWNZQT7yEwL/TdHe2Dw==
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Subject: [tcmtf] Improved description of the BOF proposal
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jsaldana@unizar.es
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: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:52:30 -0000
Hi all. After talking with Dan, we have improved the BOF description. This is the new proposal: The interactivity requirements of some emerging services (VoIP, videoconferencing, telemedicine, video vigilance, online gaming, etc.) make them send high rates of small packets, in order to transmit frequent updates between the two extremes of the communication. They also demand small network delays. In addition, some other services also use small packets, although they are not delay-sensitive (e.g., instant messaging, m2m packets sending collected data in sensor networks using wireless or satellite scenarios). For both the delay-sensitive and delay-insensitive applications, their small data payloads incur significant overhead. When a number of small-packet flows share the same path, bandwidth can be saved by multiplexing packets belonging to different flows. If a transmission queue has not already been formed but multiplexing is desired, it is necessary to add a multiplexing delay, which has to be maintained under some threshold in order to grant the delay requirements. Some examples of the scenarios where grouping packets is possible are: - aggregation networks of a network operator - an end-to-end tunnel between appliances located in two different offices of the same company - a satellite connection used for collecting the data of a high number of sensors. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4170> RFC4170 (TCRTP) defined a method for grouping VoIP packets considering three different layers: header compression by means of ECRTP; multiplexing by means of PPPMux; tunneling by means of L2TPv3. However, in the last years, emerging real-time services which do not use UDP/RTP have become popular: some of them use UDP or even TCP. In addition, new header compression methods have been defined (ROHC). So there is a need of widening the scope of RFC4170 in order to consider not only UDP/RTP but also other protocols. The same structure of three layers will be considered: header compression, multiplexing and tunneling. The BOF aims for the creation of a Working Group in order to specify the protocol stack, signaling mechanisms and maximum added delay recommendations for tunneling, compressing and multiplexing traffic flows (TCMTF). Jose
- [tcmtf] Improved description of the BOF proposal Jose Saldana