draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10.txt   draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-11.txt 
RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques D. Hayes, Ed. RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques D. Hayes, Ed.
Internet-Draft Simula Research Laboratory Internet-Draft Simula Research Laboratory
Intended status: Experimental S. Ferlin Intended status: Experimental S. Ferlin
Expires: August 20, 2018 Expires: September 30, 2018
M. Welzl M. Welzl
K. Hiorth K. Hiorth
University of Oslo University of Oslo
February 16, 2018 March 29, 2018
Shared Bottleneck Detection for Coupled Congestion Control for RTP Shared Bottleneck Detection for Coupled Congestion Control for RTP
Media. Media.
draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10 draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-11
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to detect whether end-to-end data This document describes a mechanism to detect whether end-to-end data
flows share a common bottleneck. It relies on summary statistics flows share a common bottleneck. It relies on summary statistics
that are calculated based on continuous measurements and used as that are calculated based on continuous measurements and used as
input to a grouping algorithm that runs wherever the knowledge is input to a grouping algorithm that runs wherever the knowledge is
needed. needed.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 42 skipping to change at page 3, line 42
The current Internet is unable to explicitly inform endpoints as to The current Internet is unable to explicitly inform endpoints as to
which flows share bottlenecks, so endpoints need to infer this from which flows share bottlenecks, so endpoints need to infer this from
whatever information is available to them. The mechanism described whatever information is available to them. The mechanism described
here currently utilizes packet loss and packet delay, but is not here currently utilizes packet loss and packet delay, but is not
restricted to these. As ECN becomes more prevalent it too will restricted to these. As ECN becomes more prevalent it too will
become a valuable base signal. become a valuable base signal.
1.2.1. Packet Loss 1.2.1. Packet Loss
Packet loss is often a relatively rare signal. Therefore, on its own Packet loss is often a relatively infrequent indication that a flow
it is of limited use for SBD, however, it is a valuable supplementary traverses a bottleneck. Therefore, on its own it is of limited use
measure when it is more prevalent. for SBD, however, it is a valuable supplementary measure when it is
more prevalent (refer to [RFC2680] section 2.5 for measuring packet
loss).
1.2.2. Packet Delay 1.2.2. Packet Delay
End-to-end delay measurements include noise from every device along End-to-end delay measurements include noise from every device along
the path in addition to the delay perturbation at the bottleneck the path in addition to the delay perturbation at the bottleneck
device. The noise is often significantly increased if the round-trip device. The noise is often significantly increased if the round-trip
time is used. The cleanest signal is obtained by using One-Way-Delay time is used. The cleanest signal is obtained by using One-Way-Delay
(OWD). (OWD) (refer to [RFC7679] section 3 for a definition of OWD).
Measuring absolute OWD is difficult since it requires both the sender Measuring absolute OWD is difficult since it requires both the sender
and receiver clocks to be synchronized. However, since the and receiver clocks to be synchronized. However, since the
statistics being collected are relative to the mean OWD, a relative statistics being collected are relative to the mean OWD, a relative
OWD measurement is sufficient. Clock skew is not usually significant OWD measurement is sufficient. Clock skew is not usually significant
over the time intervals used by this SBD mechanism (see [RFC6817] A.2 over the time intervals used by this SBD mechanism (see [RFC6817] A.2
for a discussion on clock skew and OWD measurements). However, in for a discussion on clock skew and OWD measurements). However, in
circumstances where it is significant, Section 5.2 outlines a way of circumstances where it is significant, Section 5.2 outlines a way of
adjusting the calculations to cater for it. adjusting the calculations to cater for it.
skipping to change at page 21, line 37 skipping to change at page 21, line 37
for coupled congestion control as described in for coupled congestion control as described in
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc], the security considerations of [I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc], the security considerations of
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc] apply. [I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc] apply.
10. Change history 10. Change history
XX RFC ED - PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION XXX XX RFC ED - PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION XXX
Changes made to this document: Changes made to this document:
WG-10->WG-11 : Genart review addressed.
WG-09->WG-10 : AD review addressed. WG-09->WG-10 : AD review addressed.
WG-08->WG-09 : Removed definitions that are no longer used. Added WG-08->WG-09 : Removed definitions that are no longer used. Added
pkt_loss definition. Refined c_s recommendation. pkt_loss definition. Refined c_s recommendation.
WG-07->WG-08 : Updates addressing https://www.ietf.org/mail- WG-07->WG-08 : Updates addressing https://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/rmcat/current/msg01671.html Mainly archive/web/rmcat/current/msg01671.html Mainly
clarifications. clarifications.
WG-06->WG-07 : Updates addressing WG-06->WG-07 : Updates addressing
skipping to change at page 23, line 29 skipping to change at page 23, line 31
Hayes, D., Ferlin, S., and M. Welzl, "Practical Passive Hayes, D., Ferlin, S., and M. Welzl, "Practical Passive
Shared Bottleneck Detection using Shape Summary Shared Bottleneck Detection using Shape Summary
Statistics", Proc. the IEEE Local Computer Networks Statistics", Proc. the IEEE Local Computer Networks
(LCN) pp150-158, September 2014, (LCN) pp150-158, September 2014,
<http://heim.ifi.uio.no/davihay/ <http://heim.ifi.uio.no/davihay/
hayes14__pract_passiv_shared_bottl_detec-abstract.html>. hayes14__pract_passiv_shared_bottl_detec-abstract.html>.
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message] [I-D.ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message]
Sarker, Z., Perkins, C., Singh, V., and M. Ramalho, "RTP Sarker, Z., Perkins, C., Singh, V., and M. Ramalho, "RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control", Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control",
draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-00 (work in draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-01 (work in
progress), October 2017. progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc]
Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion
control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-07 control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-07
(work in progress), September 2017. (work in progress), September 2017.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>. July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey, [RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.
skipping to change at page 24, line 10 skipping to change at page 24, line 21
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for [RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5124>. 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5124>.
[RFC6817] Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., Iyengar, J., and M. Kuehlewind, [RFC6817] Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., Iyengar, J., and M. Kuehlewind,
"Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)", RFC 6817, "Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)", RFC 6817,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6817, December 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6817, December 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6817>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6817>.
[RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[Zhang-Infocom02] [Zhang-Infocom02]
Zhang, L., Liu, Z., and H. Xia, "Clock synchronization Zhang, L., Liu, Z., and H. Xia, "Clock synchronization
algorithms for network measurements", Proc. the IEEE algorithms for network measurements", Proc. the IEEE
International Conference on Computer Communications International Conference on Computer Communications
(INFOCOM) pp160-169, September 2002, (INFOCOM) pp160-169, September 2002,
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.2002.1019257>. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.2002.1019257>.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 24 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/