1 / 12

ForCES Protocol TML Over IP Networks - Update

ForCES Protocol TML Over IP Networks - Update. <draft-wang-forces-iptml-02.txt> Weiming Wang, Ligang Dong, Bin Zhuge (wmwang, donglg, zhugebin) @mail.zjgsu.edu.cn IETF 68 th Meeting Mar. 20, 2007, Prague Czech. Key proposals by the draft.

joannelee
Download Presentation

ForCES Protocol TML Over IP Networks - Update

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. ForCES Protocol TML Over IP Networks- Update <draft-wang-forces-iptml-02.txt> Weiming Wang, Ligang Dong, Bin Zhuge (wmwang, donglg, zhugebin) @mail.zjgsu.edu.cn IETF 68th Meeting Mar. 20, 2007, Prague Czech

  2. Key proposals by the draft • A TML that adopts the most general transport protocols: TCP and UDP • A TML that can provide true multicast transportation • A TML that does not have to take TML level messaging

  3. Transportation scheme • TCP for: • PL control messages, which require strict reliability • in the form of: • unicast • multiple unicast for PL multicast • UDP for • PL redirect messages • unicast and mulitcast • PL heartbeats • unicast and mulitcast • the multicast is exactly the IP multicast, rather than multiple unicast

  4. Why UDP ? • The generic feature for raw data transmission minimizes its side effects on protocols shipped over it: • avoided any kind of CC over CC, like TCPoverTCP • Efficiently meet the requirements for redirect message multicast • multicast for CE->FE redirected data will be a very common case for use, e.g.: • for routing protocol messages • for multicast protocol messages • Efficiently meet the requirements for heartbeat broadcast • just consider hundreds of FEs connected to a CE • Well-known and widely deployed • This is so important a point that it may affect deployment of ForCES greatly.

  5. Congestion and DoS problem • We are looking for transport layer protocolsthat are expected to provide sufficient CC and DoS prevention ability for ForCES TML usage • That also raises the discussions on whether TCP+UDP is ok enough or not as a ForCES TML.

  6. Congestion Control problem (cont’d) • An extreme example • seems to show that congestion and DoS attack may still be there whichever TML transport layer protocols we choose. CE A UDP stream by other applications A multi-hop network cloud that may be shared by applications as well as ForCES A ForCES CE-FE stream with some transport layer protocol FE

  7. Congestion Control problem (cont’d) • Whereas, on the other hand, experiences from traditional routers have shown that we may have to more rely on the whole NE resources, like the forwarding plane elements, the control plane policies, etc, rather than just on the TML layer transport resource for congestion and DoS attack avoidance inside a NE. • rate limit, packet recognizing and filtering, etc.

  8. Conclusions • Currently, there maybe no transportation protocols that can perfectly meet the CC and DoS prevention requirements by ForCES • CC and DoS prevention is a system engineering for the whole NE rather than the TML. • Congestion and DoS problem should not be a barrier for us to adopt TCP+UDP TML，which is not on the contrary to the problem solving

  9. Conclusions (more) • TCP+UDP TML is an efficient, feasible, and cost-effective TML for ForCES • ForCES do need such a TML • There are TCP+UDP TML implementations • The idea to abandon TML messaging is first presented by the draft, which has actually been accepted.

  10. Request • Request the TML draft as a WG document.

  11. Acknowledges: • Research is funded by: • NSF China (60573116, 60603072) • Zhejiang Provincial NSF China (No. Z106829) • Zhejiang Sci & Tech Project (2006C11215)

  12. Thank You!

More Related