[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                         S. Salsano
Internet-Draft                                                  A. Detti
Intended status: Informational                        N. Blefari-Melazzi
Expires: November 29, 2012                                M. Cancellieri
                                             Univ. of Rome "Tor Vergata"
                                                            May 28, 2012


      ICTP - Information Centric Transport Protocol for CONET ICN
                         draft-salsano-ictp-00

Abstract

   Let us consider an Information Centric Networking (ICN) solution, in
   which an End Node requests for a content sending "content requests"
   (or "interest packets").  The content is provided back to the
   requestor by the "origin" node or by an intermediate node that had
   cached the content.  The content is usually divided into "chunks"
   that can be individually requested, sent back to the requester,
   cached into intermediate nodes.  The sending rate of content requests
   can be adjusted in order to perform congestion control, implementing
   a receiver driven transport protocol.  As it can be useful to have
   large chunks (significantly larger than the Maximum Tranfer Unit
   across the network), the transport protocol should also be used to
   further segment the chunks rather than relying to IP fragmentation.
   In this memo we define ICTP (Information Centric Transport Protocol),
   a receiver driven transport protocol for ICN, which relies on the
   CONET ICN solution described in a companion draft.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 29, 2012.

Copyright Notice




Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  CONET Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  ICTP Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Interest CIU Payload Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  DATA CIU Payload Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  EVLE Efficient Variable Length Encoding  . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  ICTP mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Congestion control mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.1.  Fast recovery and fast retransmit  . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.2.  Slow start and congestion avoidance  . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  ICTP specific mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.1.  Prefetch option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.2.  Request chunk information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11














Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


1.  Introduction

   [I-D.CONET] proposes an approach to Information Centric Networking
   [Koponen07][Jacobson09] based on extending the IP protocol by using a
   new IP Option called CONET IP option (defined both for IPv4 [RFC0791]
   and IPv6 [RFC2460]).  The CONET IP option can be used by routers to
   support content aware networking, in addition to classical address
   based networking.  Further information on the proposed solution can
   also be found in [CONET11].

   In this memo we define a receiver driven transport protocol for CONET
   ICN, called ICTP - Information Centric Transport Protocol.  The
   transport protocol is able to provide a reliable transfer of the
   content and to perform congestion control in TCP-friendly way.  A
   discussion about the definition of a transport protocol for ICN can
   be found in [ICTP12].

   As shown in Figure 1, the CONET architecture proposed in [I-D.CONET]
   foresees End-Nodes, Serving Nodes and CONET nodes.  End-Nodes request
   for content.  Serving Nodes provide content.  CONET nodes: i) forward
   content requests from End-Nodes to Serving Nodes; ii) deliver content
   from Serving Nodes to End-Nodes; iii) may cache content and therefore
   provide it to End-Nodes without contacting the Serving Node.


                 requests for content
                 ------------------->
                 content is provided
                 <-------------------
     +----+                              +----+      +----+
     |    |                            --|    |------|    |
     +----+\                         /   +----+      +----+
            \    +----+      +----+ /
             ----|    |------|    |/
                 +----+      +----+
   End-Node      legacy    Intermediate   Border     Serving
                 IP router     Node        Node        Node
       |                                   |
       +---------CONET next hop----------->+


                       Figure 1: CONET architecture


2.  CONET Basics

   In this section we recall the basic aspects of the CONET ICN
   solution, as needed to introduce the proposed receiver driven



Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


   Information Centric Transport Protocol (ICTP).

   The figure below shows the CONET protocol stack.  CONET protocol is
   divided in two sub-layers, whose data unit are respectively denoted
   as "Carrier Packets" and "CONET Information Units".  Two types of
   CONET Information Units are currently defined ("Interests CIU" and
   "Named Data CIU").  The CONET Information Unit Type field in the
   CONET IP option differentiates among the two types.  A CONET
   Information Unit (CIU) can be split into different Carrier Packets.
   Each Carrier Packet is transported by an IP packet.


       +--------+--------+--------+ \
       | CONET Information Units  |  |
       +--------+--------+--------+  |
                                     |
       +--------+--------+--------+  |- CONET protocol
       |     Carrier Packets      |  |
       +--------+--------+--------+  |
                                     |
       +--------+--------+--------+ /
       | IP (with CONET IP option)|
       +--------+--------+--------+

                      Figure 2: CONET protocol layers

   The generic structure of a Carrier Packet (CP) is reported hereafter:


       +-------------------------+
       |    CP Payload header    |
       +-------------------------+
       |       CP Payload        |
       +-------------------------+
       |      CP Path state      |
       +-------------------------+

   "Interest CIU" are used by End-Nodes to request for content.  The
   Interest CIUs contain the identifier of the content called ICN-ID and
   transported within the IP CONET Option.  Optionally, the IP CONET
   option can explicitly carry a "Chunk Sequence Number" to identify one
   of the chunk in which a content has been split.  Another possibility
   is that the chunk number is carried within the ICN-ID itself.  A
   Serving Node or a CONET node that had previously cached the
   information can reply to the content request by sending a "Named-data
   CIU".  These Named-data CIU will also contain the ICN-ID in the IP
   CONET Option.




Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


   The CP payload header contains the length of the CP Payload and
   allows to identify the start of the CP Path state field.  The use of
   CP Path state field was explained in [I-D.CONET] and is out of scope
   here.

   The information contained in the CP Payload header is specific for
   each CIU type.  The information transported in the CP Payload header
   can be used to implement the functionalities of a transport protocol,
   providing a reliable transmission of content and performing
   congestion control.  In this document we define the CP Payload header
   for Interest and Data CIUc using the ICTP protocol.

   An end-node that wants to retrieve a content (or better a Chunk of a
   content) issues an Interest CIU, the ICN-ID and (optionally) the
   Chunk Sequence Number of the required Content are respectively
   transported in the ICN Identifier (ICN-ID) field and in the CSN field
   of the CONET IP option.  Assuming for simplicity that the Interest
   CIU will fit into a single Carrier Packet, the Interest CIU will be
   included in the Carrier Packet that in turn is inserted into an IP
   packet.  The ICTP comes into play because a Chunk of content may need
   to be fragmented in more than one Carrier Packet, as the chunk size
   can be much larger than the layer 2 MTU.  For example with a chunk
   size of 64 KB or 256 KB and an MTU of 1500 bytes, the chunks need to
   be split in tens or hundreds of packets.  In this case the RDTP
   allows to specify in the request the specific segment of the chunk
   that is required.


3.  ICTP Data Structures

3.1.  Interest CIU Payload Header

   The structure of the interest CP payload header is reported
   hereafter:


       +-------------------------+
       |TTrrrrrPI| ..Left Edge...|
       +-------------------------+
       |    ...Right Edge...     |
       +-------------------------+


   Flags:

   TT : Transport protocol type.  It allows to define different
   transport protocols. 0 indicates ICTP which is defined in this draft.
   1-3 are reserved and can be used to indicate different transport



Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


   protocols.  The rest of the bits in this field and in the following
   bytes may have a different semantic depending on the transport
   protocol, we are providing here only the defintion for TT=0 i.e. the
   ICTP protocol.  Therefore the number of transport protocols is NOT
   limited to 4.

   P : Prefetch flag - This flag indicates that this packet comes from a
   receiver that asks to perform prefetch on the content chunks.

   I : Ask Chunk Info flag - If this flag is set, the serving node is
   requested to add chunk-related information to the data CIU payload,
   particularly the chunk size.

   Left edge/Right edge : These fields contain respectively the value of
   first and the last byte of the requested chunk segment.  The fields
   are encoded with the EVLE (Efficient Variable Lenght Encoding)
   mechanim described below

3.2.  DATA CIU Payload Header

   The structure of the data CP payload header is reported hereafter:


       +-------------------------+
       |TTrFSSSS| ...Left Edge...|
       +-------------------------+
       |    ...Right Edge...     |
       +-------------------------+
       | (Optional) Chunk size   |
       +-------------------------+


   Flags:

   TT : Transport protocol type.  It allows to define different
   transport protocols. 0 indicates ICTP which is defined in this draft.
   1-3 are reserved and can be used to indicate different transport
   protocols.  The same considerations apply that have been reported
   above for the TT subfield in the interest CIU payload header.

   F : Final segment flag - If this bit is set to 1 this carrier packet
   carries the last segment of a chunk.

   SSSS : Chunk size flag - This flag describes the size of a chunk as
   follows:






Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


      0 : unspecified (it may have been already indicated
          in a previous data)
      1 : the chunk size is trasnported in the optional
          Chunk size field, encoded with the EVLE variable length
          encoding described below
      2-16 : let n be the value from 2 to 16, it can represent
             14 different chunk sizes from 2KBytes to 8Mbyte
             with the following relation:
             chunk size = 2 ^ (9+n)

   Left edge/Right edge : These fields contains respectively the value
   of first and the last byte of the transported chunk segment.  The
   fields are encoded with EVLE variable length encoding described
   below.  These fields carry the actual value of the segment
   transported that may differ from the request.

3.3.  EVLE Efficient Variable Length Encoding

   Some of the fields described above are encoded using a variable
   lenght encoding that we denote as "Efficient Variable Lenght
   Encoding".  The same encoding is used for the Chunk Sequence Number
   (CSN) field in the CONET IP Option, as described in [I-D.CONET].  To
   help the reader, we report the definition of the encoding hereafter.
   An EVLE field is represented with a variable number of bytes.  An
   initial bit pattern determines the length of the EVLE field.


























Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


   1 byte EVLE (7 bits range)
       +--------+
       |0       |
       +--------+

   2 bytes EVLE (15 bit range)
       +--------+--------+
       |10               |
       +--------+--------+

   3 bytes EVLE (21 bit range)
       +--------+--------+--------+
       |110     |        |        |
       +--------+--------+--------+

   4 bytes EVLE (28 bit range)
       +--------+--------+--------+--------+
       |1110    |        |        |        |
       +--------+--------+--------+--------+

   5 bytes EVLE (32 bit range)
       +--------+--------+--------+--------+
       |11110000|        |        |        |
       +--------+--------+--------+--------+
       |        |
       +--------+

   6 bytes EVLE (40 bit range)
       +--------+--------+--------+--------+
       |11110001|        |        |        |
       +--------+--------+--------+--------+
       |        |        |
       +--------+--------+


   As explained in in [I-D.CONET], binary patterns from 11110010 to
   11111111 are reserved and could be used to extend the EVLE range if
   needed.  With the above definion the maximum value is 2^40, roughly 1
   Tera.


4.  ICTP mechanisms

   The transport protocol described in this draft mimics the TPC
   mechanisms described in [RFC2581], with the required adaptations for
   a receiver driven approach.  In fact, while in TCP the sender sends
   data segment and implements retransmissions and congestion control
   based on the reception of ACKs, in ICN based content download the



Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


   receiver asks for content sending the Interests and implements re-
   sending of Interests and congestion control based on the reception of
   Data.

4.1.  Congestion control mechanisms

4.1.1.  Fast recovery and fast retransmit

   The receiver bases its flow control on the received data CP.  The out
   of sequence recognition is based on the expected chunk number and
   segment bytes.  When three out-of-sequence data CP are received the
   slow start threshold (ssthresh, see [RFC2581]) is set to half the
   window plus the 3 data carrier packet already received and the
   interest for the missing segment is retransmitted.

4.1.2.  Slow start and congestion avoidance

   To manage the increase of congestion window slow start and congestion
   avoidance mechanism are performed.  During slow start, (e.g. the
   beginning of the connection), the congestion window increases of an
   amount equal to the received data CP.  This corresponds to an
   "exponential" growth of the window.  During congestion avoidance, the
   growth of the window is aproximately "linear" with time.  Let us
   define a "segment" as the portion of content transported in a data
   CP.  We define the congestion window cwnd in segments.  During slow
   start cwnd = cwnd + 1 for each received data CP.  During congestion
   avoidance cwnd = cwnd + 1/cwnd for each received data CP.

4.2.  ICTP specific mechanisms

4.2.1.  Prefetch option

   In a ICN based network, we can have applications separately
   requesting the download of each chunk of content.  In our ICTP
   approach this means that we can only request the segments of a given
   chunk after that we have received the request for the chunk coming
   from the application.  The application may implement retransmission
   and congestion control, therefore the ICTP could receive requests for
   more than a chunk of the same content in parallel.  Anyway the
   interaction between the congestion control performed at application
   level and the congestion control performed at ICTP level could prove
   inefficient.  Therefore we believe that the API offered to the
   application should allow the application to request for a whole
   content (or for the content starting from a given chunk number).
   Then the ICTP protocol can handle the retrieval of all the (rest of)
   the content.  Therefore the ICTP protocol offers also a "prefetch
   option".  Whit the prefetch option active, if the congestion window
   has space left, the mechanism allow to issue requests for segments of



Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


   next expected chunks, without waiting for an explicit request from
   application level.

4.2.2.  Request chunk information

   When the transmission start, the receiver must issue a request for at
   least the chunk size.  Receiver should set the flags in carrier
   packet accordingly to Section 3.1.  The data ciu requested will carry
   at least the chunk size, receiver should use this information to
   create data structure best suited for the chunk size.


5.  Acknowledgments

   We acknowledge the financial support by the EU in the context of the
   CONVERGENCE research project.


6.  Performance Considerations


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires the allocation of one IP option by the IANA.

   This document requires the allocation of one IP protocol number by
   the IANA.

   This document requires that IANA will maintain the registry of CONET
   namespaces.


8.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations to be provided


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,



Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


              June 1999.

9.2.  Informative References

   [CONET11]  A. Detti, et al., "CONET: A Content Centric Inter-
              Networking Architecture", ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on
              Information-Centric Networking (ICN-2011), Toronto,
              Canada , August 2011.

   [I-D.CONET]
              Detti, A., Salsano, S., and N. Blefari-Melazzi, "An IPv4
              Option to support Content Networking",
              draft-detti-conet-ip-option-01 (work in progress),
              September 2011.

   [ICTP12]   S. Salsano, et al., "Transport-layer issues in Information
              Centric Networks", ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Information-
              Centric Networking (ICN-2012), Helsinki, Finland ,
              August 2012.

   [Jacobson09]
              V. Jacobson, et al., "Networking named content", Proc. of
              ACM CoNEXT 2009 , 2009.

   [Koponen07]
              T. Koponen et al., "A data-oriented (and beyond) network
              architecture", Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM 2007 , 2007.

   [RFC2581]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.


Authors' Addresses

   Stefano Salsano
   Univ. of Rome "Tor Vergata"
   Via del Politecnico, 1
   Rome  00133
   Italy

   Email: stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it










Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   Information Centric Transport Protocol         May 2012


   Andrea Detti
   Univ. of Rome "Tor Vergata"
   Via del Politecnico, 1
   Rome  00133
   Italy

   Email: andrea.detti@uniroma2.it


   Nicola Blefari-Melazzi
   Univ. of Rome "Tor Vergata"
   Via del Politecnico, 1
   Rome  00133
   Italy

   Email: blefari@uniroma2.it


   Matteo Cancellieri
   Univ. of Rome "Tor Vergata"
   Via del Politecnico, 1
   Rome  00133
   Italy

   Email: matteo.cancellieri@gmail.com


























Salsano, et al.         Expires November 29, 2012              [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/