1 / 7

TCP Convergence Layer Issues

TCP Convergence Layer Issues. Jörg Ott <jo@netlab.hut.fi> 24 March 2006. Background. Mobile Internet access Drive-thru Internet Other forms of (ad-hoc) mobile & nomadic usage Existing applications and their requirements Simple observations (Mobile) users are likely behind NATs

travis-benton
Download Presentation

TCP Convergence Layer Issues

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. TCP Convergence Layer Issues Jörg Ott <jo@netlab.hut.fi> 24 March 2006 DTNRG

  2. Background • Mobile Internet access • Drive-thru Internet • Other forms of (ad-hoc) mobile & nomadic usage • Existing applications and their requirements • Simple observations • (Mobile) users are likely behind NATs • Mobile users likely have changing IP addresses • Ignoring mobile IP for a moment • Users may be behind firewalls • In many (present) applications the mobile users is the active party • Forwarding should support opportunistic “polling” DTNRG

  3. TCP Convergence Layer • Moving from uni- to bidirectional use of TCP links • As noted by Mike yesterday • Issue: endpoint identification • Needed to separate connection establishment from bundle transmission • Is this a convergence or a bundle layer issue? eid:B eid:A Contact Bundle X → A Contact Bundle [A→B] [last_hop=‘A’] Bundle [X→A] [last_hop=‘B’] DTNRG

  4. TCP Convergence Layer • Issue: Faking identity to obtain bundles • A’ claims to be A (e.g. by replay) • Handshake with nonce needed? • Would not be applicable to all links • Full authentication of last hop (incl. timestamp) • Issue with validity period due to only loose clock synch • What to do if: • A authenticates with B, opens a connection • A’ captures the ‘last hop’ bundle, re-uses it to connects as well • Obviously, you cannot rely on interactive exchange available at the bundle layer • Would call for specific convergence layer solution • But you don’t want to redo this over and over again DTNRG

  5. TCP Convergence Layer • Issue: Connection teardown • Assuming connection can only be established one way • Is it necessary for both sides to know how long this is expected to last? (e.g., for internal scheduling) • Should this be negotiated? DTNRG

  6. dtnd Implementation Note (1) • HTTP-over-DTN for standalone nodes • Different scope than yesterday’s discussion • dtnd for Nokia Internet Tablet • dtntcp for lightweight dealing with HTTP requests Web browser Linux PC puf dtntcp dtntcp dtnd dtnd DTNRG

  7. Implementation Note (2) • C++ implementation of DTNRG spec • Draft -04 • TCP convergence layer (some interim draft) • Looking forward to interop tests with dtnd 2.2.0 • Done in cooperation with Universität Bremen TZI • Public availability after testing • Embedded implementation of DTNRG spec • For mobile devices • Well on its way at Helsinki University of Technology • Again, interop testing before public release DTNRG

More Related