Concurrent Multipath Transfer (was Re: [Tsvwg] sctp performance)

Janardhan Iyengar <iyengar@mail.eecis.udel.edu> Thu, 14 October 2004 17:03 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07668; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:03:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CI9Bj-0006qV-0m; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:14:52 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CI8ua-0006qb-Vf; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:57:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CI8nF-0004HL-OL for tsvwg@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:49:33 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06532 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:49:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from louie.udel.edu ([128.4.40.12] helo=mail.eecis.udel.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CI8yS-0006X4-0H for tsvwg@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:01:08 -0400
Received: by mail.eecis.udel.edu (Postfix, from userid 62) id 74DF232CDF; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:49:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from stimpy.eecis.udel.edu (stimpy.eecis.udel.edu [128.4.40.17]) by mail.eecis.udel.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F83032BD8; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:49:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:49:30 -0400
From: Janardhan Iyengar <iyengar@mail.eecis.udel.edu>
X-X-Sender: iyengar@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu
To: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
Subject: Concurrent Multipath Transfer (was Re: [Tsvwg] sctp performance)
In-Reply-To: <200410132127.i9DLRf7U017166@nailgun.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0410141127320.22636@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu>
References: <200410132127.i9DLRf7U017166@nailgun.cisco.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on louie.udel.edu
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=4.1 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64
X-Sanitizer: This message has been sanitized!
X-Sanitizer-URL: http://mailtools.anomy.net/
X-Sanitizer-Rev: UDEL-ECECIS: Sanitizer.pm, v 1.64 2002/10/22 MIME-Version: 1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
Cc: Janardhan Iyengar <iyengar@cis.udel.edu>, tsvwg@ietf.org, sctp-impl@external.cisco.com, "Paul D. Amer" <amer@mail.eecis.udel.edu>, lksctp-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8

Hi Brian/all,

(I trimmed the Cc list. And I apologize for posting on several lists. But
this discussion started on all these lists. Maybe it could move to
one/more lists as per interest?)

The papers that are referred to in this thread are:
http://www.cis.udel.edu/~iyengar/publications/2004.spects.iyengar.pdf
http://www.cis.udel.edu/~iyengar/publications/2004.icon.iyengar.pdf

I add another paper here, which is currently under submission and is a
continuation of CMT work:
http://www.cis.udel.edu/~iyengar/publications/2005.icdcs.iyengar.pdf

> As I'm sure you know, the OpenSS7 SCTP implementation has been using a
> weighted version of the algorithms from the second paper since 2001.

[...]

> The implementation also uses a (patentable) FR algorithm that is far
> simpler than the split-FR presented in the first paper.

I certainly did not know that you already implemented these algorithms. I
don't think any of the co-authors on the papers knew either. Could you
post the algos, or send a reference that we could look up?

If your FR algo is far simpler, I would certainly like to look at it,
because I could not get the SFR-CACC algo to be simpler than it is. Well,
it is simpler than it _was_, but I do not know how to make it any simpler.
Also, the first paper presents two other algos - the CUC and DAC algos. At
least the CUC algorithm is, IMHO, necessary to see expected throughput, at
least if the paths in question have different end-to-end delays. Did  you
implement something like CUC too?

You say the algo is "patentable" - I do not understand what that means.
Did you mean to say the algo is "patentED"? So, can you post the algo?

Note: The ID (draft-iyengar-sctp-cacc-xx.txt) which was first published in
Feb 2002 has expired now, but I'm planning to resubmit it in a new form
and with significant additions/modifications. I wanted to spend more time
looking at changeover/CMT concerns with SCTP before putting something out
as an ID.

regards,
jana

---------------------------------------------------------------
Janardhan R. Iyengar           http://www.cis.udel.edu/~iyengar
Protocol Engineering Lab  --   CIS   --  University Of Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
tsvwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg