TCM-TF Reference Model

Jose Saldana ([email protected]) TCM-TF BOF, IETF87 Berlin, August 1st, 2013 1

TCM-TF Reference Model Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows (TCM-TF) draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05

Authors: Jose Saldana Dan Wing Julian Fernandez-Navajas Muthu A.M. Perumal Fernando Pascual Blanco

Contributing authors: Gonzalo Camarillo Michael A. Ramalho Jose Ruiz Mas Diego R Lopez David Florez Manuel Nunez Sanz Juan Antonio Castell Mirko Suznjevic

Intended status: Best Current Practice

2 TCM-TF Protocol stack

Three layers: 1.  header Compression 2.  Multiplexing 3.  Tunneling IP IP IP

No compr. / ROHC / IPHC / ECRTP

PPPMux / Other

GRE / L2TP

IP

Compression layer

Multiplexing layer

Tunneling layer

Network Protocol

UDP

RTP

payload

UDPTCP

payloadpayload

MPLS

3

Different Protocols: TCP/IP UDP/IP RTP/UDP/IP ESP/IP

TCM-TF Protocol stack

IP IP IP


PPPMux / Other

GRE / L2TP

IP

Compression layer

Multiplexing layer

Tunneling layer

Network Protocol

UDP

RTP

payload

UDPTCP

payloadpayload

MPLS

TCP, UDP, UDP/RTP


IP IP IP


PPPMux / Other

GRE / L2TP

IP

Compression layer

Multiplexing layer

Tunneling layer

Network Protocol

UDP

RTP

payload

UDPTCP

payloadpayload

MPLS

Different header compression algorithms: The most adequate one can be selected according to: -  kind of traffic -  scenario (loss, delay) -  processing capacity, etc.


IP IP IP


PPPMux / Other

GRE / L2TP

IP

Compression layer

Multiplexing layer

Tunneling layer

Network Protocol

UDP

RTP

payload

UDPTCP

payloadpayload

MPLS

Different mux algorithms. Currently: PPPMux, but other ones could also be considered


IP IP IP


PPPMux / Other

GRE / L2TP

IP

Compression layer

Multiplexing layer

Tunneling layer

Network Protocol

UDP

RTP

payload

UDPTCP

payloadpayload

MPLS

Different tunneling algorithms. Currently: L2TPv3 Others: GRE, MPLS, etc


Backwards compatibility with TCRTP (RFC4170, implemented in some places), which would become one of the TCM-TF options

IP IP IP


PPPMux / Other

GRE / L2TP

IP

Compression layer

Multiplexing layer

Tunneling layer

Network Protocol

UDP

RTP

payload

UDPTCP

payloadpayload

MPLS

8 TMC-TF optimized packet examples

Five IPv4/UDP/RTP VoIP packets with two samples of 10 bytesη=100/300=33%

savingOne IPv4 TCMTF Packet multiplexing five two sample packetsη=100/161=62%

Four IPv6/UDP/RTP VoIP packets with two samples of 10 bytesη=80/240=33%

savingOne IPv6 TCMTF Packet multiplexing four two sample packetsη=80/161=49%

Seven IPv4/TCP client-to-server packets of World of Warcraft. E[P]=20bytes

One IPv4/TCMTF packet multiplexing seven client-to-server WoW packets

η=80/360=22%

η=80/175=45%saving

Five IPv6/TCP client-to-server packets of World of Warcraft. E[P]=20bytes

One IPv6/TCMTF packet multiplexing five client-to-server WoW packetsη=60/187=32%

saving

TCP ACKs without payload

η=60/360=16%

9 TMC-TF savings

Some remarks -  We can reduce bandwidth and pps -  Bandwidth savings are higher for IPv6 -  Interesting for:

-  Flexibility (traffic surges at certain moments or places) -  Permanent optimization: satellite, access links in

developing countries -  Tradeoff: we have to add a small delay. So we need to

establish some limits, depending on the service, the network status, etc.

10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

BW

sav

ing

Number of flows k

TCM-TF Bandwidth Saving VoIP (Pr. reduced header = 0.95)

Payload=10 bytes

Payload=20 bytes

Payload=30 bytes

TMC-TF savings for VoIP

"Evaluating the Influence of Multiplexing Schemes and Buffer Implementation on Perceived VoIP Conversation Quality," Computer Networks (Elsevier). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.02.004

52% bandwidth saved

Counterpart: multiplexing delay: 1 inter-packet time

11

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

BS

period (ms)

TCM-TF Bandwidth Saving UDP

20 players

15 players

10 players

5 players

TMC-TF savings for UDP UDP First Person Shooter (Counter Strike)

First Person Shooters: Can a Smarter Network Save Bandwidth without Annoying the Players?," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no.11, pp. 190-198, November 2011

Up to 30% bandwidth saved

Counterpart: multiplexing period

12 TMC-TF savings for TCP

TCP MMORPG (World of Warcraft)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

BS

period (ms)

Bandwidth Saving

100 players

50 players

20 players

10 players

Period 20ms (delay 10ms):

56% bandwidth saved

"Traffic Optimization for TCP-based Massive Multiplayer Online Games," Proc. International Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems SPECTS 2012, July 8-11, 2012, Genoa, Italy.

Asymptote 60%

13 TMC-TF pps reductions

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

50 RTP 20 RTP 10 RTP 50 TCMTF 20 TCMTF 10 TCMTF

Packets per second1 sample/packet2 samples/packet3 samples/packet

VoIP: From 2600 to 150 pps ÷17 factor

(G729, 2 samples per packet)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

native 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

period (ms)

Packets per second20 players15 players10 players5 players

FPS game: From 490 to 20 pps

÷ 24 factor

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

native 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

period (ms)

Packets per second100 players50 players20 players10 players

MMORPG game: From 940 to 25 pps

÷ 37 factor

TCM-TF Reference Model

Documents