- From: <spreitze@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:53:02 PST
- To: ietf-http-ng@w3.org
FYI ---------------- Forwarded Message ---------------------- Received: from alpha.xerox.com ([13.1.64.93]) by louise.parc.xerox.com with SMTP id <358855>; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:03:35 PST Received: from daffy.ee.lbl.gov ([131.243.1.31]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <52081(4)>; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:03:28 PST Received: (from vern@localhost) by daffy.ee.lbl.gov (8.9.2/8.9.2) id KAA11122; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:03:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902281803.KAA11122@daffy.ee.lbl.gov> To: ruts@lbl.gov Subject: SLUMS BOF for addressing RUTS requirements Cc: srini@watson.ibm.com, hari@lcs.mit.edu, spreitze@parc.xerox.com Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:03:26 PST From: Vern Paxson <vern@ee.lbl.gov> X-UIDL: a3500b3e71e943e75d96aefa9dec3412 Status: U There will be a BOF at the next IETF called SLUMS (= Support for Lots of Unicast Multiplexed Sessions) that will explore possible transport solutions to addressing a subset of the requirements that came out of the RUTS BOF at the last IETF. SLUMS is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday (3/17) afternoon, 1PM-3PM. The subset of the requirements we're picturing as in scope for SLUMS is: - quick establishment/activation, which is in tension with security considerations (authentication, flooding - not holding state) - support for application level framing: - control over reliability (e.g., setting time limits on how long to try to deliver a message) - the ability to supercede previous application messages - minimize state requirements; think of servers with 1e6 connections - muxing: PDUs muxed, delivered ASAP. Want ACK aggregation across the different communication streams; isolated flow-control; QoS consciousness between the streams. - congestion control across multiple communication streams - reducing slow start delays for multiple communication streams - failover: transport connection can survive across change in IP address - on connection attempt, SYN timeout are viewed as expensive - mid-stream, need to switch to backup interfaces - ability for application to indicate "a reply is coming" versus "no more coming now, go ahead and ack, don't delay" And the ones that are not in scope: - support for application level framing: - visibility into network conditions - want to deal with transport at a 'frame' granularity (record marking) - per-message priority control - congestion control - slow start hit (bursty vs. even flow) - snappy after idle (bursty vs. even flow) - optionally becoming aggressive during loss (for control traffic whose job is to stem the congestion); e.g., FEC - small footprint The goal of the BOF is to explore different basic approaches for addressing these requirements. All of the proposed approaches deal primarily with the muxing requirement, ensuring that multiple communication threads between two hosts obey the fundamental congestion control principles. Addressing the other requirements is generally deferred to higher-layer solutions, which strikes us as a good way to divide up the problem. Srini Seshan will discuss an approach that he, Hari Balakrishnan, and colleagues have developed called the "Congestion Manager" (CM). The basic idea is that a host's different communication streams use a CM service to determine when they can send and at what rate. The CM is described in the paper "An Integrated Congestion Management Architecture for Internet Hosts", available from http://inat.lcs.mit.edu/papers/BRS99.ps Please read this document if you have a chance - it's a very interesting framework that has little overhead (none in the case of managing multiple TCP connections). Mike Spreitze will discuss MEMUX, which has come out of the HTTP-NG muxing work. MEMUX operates above the transport layer, multiplexing a set of communication streams on top of a single transport connection. We may also have advocates for integrating congestion control across multiple TCP streams. One can then implement lightweight communication streams using multiple T/TCP connections. - Vern & Scott ---------------- End of Forwarded Message ---------------
Received on Sunday, 28 February 1999 16:53:33 UTC