1 / 13

Triggers for Transport (TRIGTRAN) Perspective IETF 57 Alias BOF

Triggers for Transport (TRIGTRAN) Perspective IETF 57 Alias BOF. Spencer Dawkins spencer@mcsr-labs.org Carl Williams carlw@mcsr-labs.org. Origins of TRIGTRAN. Two Sources Performance Implications of Link Characteristics (PILC) Layer-two triggers (L2triggers) Bar BoF at IETF 53

dyami
Download Presentation

Triggers for Transport (TRIGTRAN) Perspective IETF 57 Alias BOF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Triggers for Transport(TRIGTRAN)PerspectiveIETF 57 Alias BOF Spencer Dawkins spencer@mcsr-labs.org Carl Williams carlw@mcsr-labs.org

  2. Origins of TRIGTRAN • Two Sources • Performance Implications of Link Characteristics (PILC) • Layer-two triggers (L2triggers) Bar BoF at IETF 53 • PILC completing BCPs on improving TCP-as-it-was • Protocol changes required to move TCP forward • Allison, Spencer, Carl dreamed up TRIGTRAN • “Triggers for Transports” • “What do links know that transports would like to know?” • Transports would figure these things out eventually… • Maybe links could tell them in less than several RTTs? • Constraints (as of IETF 55 BoF) • Access link, likely wireless, no multi-homing TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  3. Arbitrary Network Topology Transport Transport IP Layer IP Layer IP Layer Subnetwork Layer Subnetwork Layer Subnetwork Layer TRIGTRAN Functionality TRIGTRAN Initiator HOST Correspondent HOST Single IP Hop TRIGTRAN Router TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  4. Arbitrary Network Topology Transport Transport IP Layer IP Layer IP Layer Subnetwork Layer Subnetwork Layer Subnetwork Layer TRIGTRAN Functionality TRIGTRAN Initiator HOST Correspondent HOST Single IP Hop TRIGTRAN Router Subnetwork Event Here TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  5. Arbitrary Network Topology Transport Transport Notification IP Layer IP Layer IP Layer Subnetwork Layer Subnetwork Layer Subnetwork Layer Notify Transport Here TRIGTRAN Functionality TRIGTRAN Initiator HOST Correspondent HOST Single IP Hop TRIGTRAN Router Subnetwork Event Here TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  6. What Happened • TRIGTRAN BoFs at IETF 55 and IETF 56 • Discussed three “notifications” • Link Up, Link Down, Packets Discarded • Strawperson framework proposal • To provide notifications from middleboxes • Allowed explicit TRIGTRAN coverage requests • Room consensus to move forward on Link Up • As end-to-end implicit notification • Draft-dawkins-trigtran-linkup-00.txt • Link Down, Packets Discarded too scary • Because notifications aren’t authenticated • Don’t even THINK about “Loss Due to Errors”! TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  7. Arbitrary Network Topology TRIGTRAN Trust Mismatch TRIGTRAN Initiator HOST Correspondent HOST Single IP Hop TRIGTRAN Router TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  8. Arbitrary Network Topology TRIGTRAN Trust Mismatch TRIGTRAN Initiator HOST Correspondent HOST Single IP Hop TRIGTRAN Router <---Trust we had---> TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  9. Arbitrary Network Topology TRIGTRAN Trust Mismatch TRIGTRAN Initiator HOST Correspondent HOST Single IP Hop TRIGTRAN Router <---Trust we had---> <---Trust we wanted---> TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  10. Arbitrary Network Topology TRIGTRAN Trust Mismatch TRIGTRAN Initiator HOST Correspondent HOST Single IP Hop TRIGTRAN Router <---Trust we had---> <---Trust we wanted---> <--------Trust we settled on for LinkUp------> TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  11. What were the implications? • There were other issues, but fundamentally … • Unauthenticated notifications = neutered responses • “Advisory notifications” – don’t ignore the ACK stream • Link Down as DoS bait • Stop transmitting before transport detects loss? • Based on unauthenticated notification? • NO! Notification had to be advisory – add complexity • SCTP interest for switchover – if they could trust it • Packets Discarded = loss without congestion • Retransmit without slowing down? • Based on unauthenticated notification? • NO! Notification had to be advisory – add complexity • Loss Due To Errors as extreme case TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  12. Lessons for Alias • TRIGTRAN agreed on one notification – LinkUp • Redefined as end-to-end notification • Functionality limited to short-circuiting RTO backoff • Has no effect unless RTO has already taken place • Slow start with cwnd=1 still happens after first ACK • Notifications complicate transport state machines • If we can’t trust them, even more complexity • If we can’t redefine a notification as end-to-end? • No support for it in TRIGTRAN, at IETF 56 BoF • Link Down is the extreme case, of course • No future for middlebox transport guidance • Without authentication TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

  13. TRIGTRAN drafts • Strawperson problem statement • draft-dawkins-trigtran-probstmt-01.txt • Strawperson framework • draft-dawkins-trigtran-framework-00.txt • LinkUp specification • draft-dawkins-trigtran-linkup-00.txt TRIGTRAN Perspective - Alias BOF

More Related