Internet DRAFT - draft-geng-mif-bandwidth-aggregation
draft-geng-mif-bandwidth-aggregation
Multiple interfaces L. Geng
Internet-Draft H. Deng
Intended status: Standards Track China Mobile
Expires: January 6, 2016 July 5, 2015
Bandwidth aggregation for multiple interface node
draft-geng-mif-bandwidth-aggregation-00
Abstract
This document describes the support of bandwidth aggregation for a
mif node. By introducing bandwidth aggregation, a mif node can use
the multihomed interfaces to achieve bandwidth enhancement, traffic
steering and improved reliability.
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 January 6, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Geng & Deng Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Bandwidth aggregation for mif node July 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bandwidth aggregation for a mif node . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Bandwidth aggregation for general purposes . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Application-specific traffic-steering . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Network reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. MPVD support of bandwidth aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
In residential networks, home gateway devices with more than one
uplink interfaces are used for flexible deployment, bandwidth
aggregation and reliability purposes. For example a home gateway
device may have both fixed and cellular access network interfaces.
In some rural area with relatively good cellular network coverage
whilst fibre resources are limited, this kind of device offers
extremely low-cost and fast deployment for broadband users. As fibre
or cable infrastructure reaches these users, the fixed network
interface can be used as a means of bandwidth aggregation or provide
higher reliability.
In contrast, as the access bandwidth gap between the fixed and
cellular networks is getting closer, it is also attractive for
current fixed network users to consider using cellular network
resource as a way to increase the total access bandwidth, or at least
to boost the access bandwidth for some particular bandwidth-greedy
services (i.e.HD video call). This is considered helpful when the
legacy access infrastructures (i.e. old MMF fibre, coax cable) are
not able to provide enough bandwidth and the network upgrade is not
feasible due to environmental or cost issues. For example, some
urban area using conventional ADSL for broadband services can use the
cellular network to achieve higher bandwidth.
In mif, the network configurations received by different interfaces
are associated with individual MPvDs. MPvD labels the node-scoped
configurations so that the conflict issues stated in ([RFC 6418]) are
avoided. Since the network configuration related to a certain
interface is well maintained by MPvD, an application can choose the
Geng & Deng Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Bandwidth aggregation for mif node July 2015
MPvD to use according to certain node policies if any interface is
preferred. Hence, it would be very interesting that MPvD can provide
link information (i.e. bandwidth, quality and cost), so that an
application can choose accordingly given that the network
configuration is valid for corresponding connection.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Terminology and Abbreviations
The terminology and abbreviations used in this document are defined
in this section.
o ISP: Internet Service Provider. A traditional network operator
who provides internet access to customers.
o VSP: Virtual Service Provider. An service provider who typically
provides over-the-top services including but not limited to
Internet of Things services (IoT).
3. Bandwidth aggregation for a mif node
A mif node can use multiple interfaces for bandwidth aggregation
purposes. General scenarios are the cases when fixed connection acts
as a means of bandwidth enhancement for cellular access point and
vice versa. In addition, if congestion exists on one of the
interfaces, the mif node should be able to steer the traffic to the
preferred link with lighter traffic to achieve improved network
performance.
As seen in Figure 1, a multihomed gateway is connected with 2 ISPs
via fixed and cellular interfaces. Two individual MPvDs are
established for these two links. The traffic can be distributed to
these two interfaces according to specific node and application
policies. This forms the basic system model for bandwidth
aggregation of a mif node.
Geng & Deng Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Bandwidth aggregation for mif node July 2015
<----Fixed internet MPvD----------->
_____ _____
+-------------------+ ( ) ( )
| +-------+ | __( ) __( )
| | | | ( ISP1 ) ( Internet )
| | Fixed +------------------------ )
| | -IF | | (_ _) (_ _)
| | | | ( _) ( _)
| +-------+ | ( ____) ( ____)
| | |
| +---------+--+ |
| | Traffic | |
| +---------+--+ |
| | | _____ _____
| +-------+ | ( ) ( )
| | | | __( ) __( )
| | Cell | | ( ISP2 ) ( Internet )
| | -IF +------------------------ )
| | | | (_ _) (_ _)
| +-------+ | ( _) ( _)
+-------------------+ ( ____) ( ____)
<----Cellular internet MPvD--------->
Figure 1
3.1. Bandwidth aggregation for general purposes
More and more services are provided by ISP and VSPs nowadays. As an
example, in addition to providing basic internet services,
traditional ISPs tend to provide services like IPTV and VoD to
increase revenue. Also, VSPs are also seeking opportunities to
provide attractive IoT service such as home security. More services
require more bandwidth.
There is no doubt that the cutting-edge fibre and coax cable
technology has enabled broadband services measured by gigabit/s at a
reasonable cost. However, ISPs can only provide such high-quality
internet access to places with newly deployed infrastructures and it
may take a long time for a customer to be reached by the upgraded
transport resources. In contrast, cellular network provides much
better coverage and potentially access bandwidth comparable with the
fix network. Hence, a multihomed device with both fixed and cellular
connections provides a competitive way for ISPs to solve the problem
of inadequate bandwidth for some subscribers.
For a mif node, the fixed and cellular network interfaces have
individual MPvDs distributed by ISPs. It is worth to mention that
Geng & Deng Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Bandwidth aggregation for mif node July 2015
these MPvDs may be maintained by different ISPs since one can have
multiple fixed connections and cellular connections with various
ISPs. The subscribers should be able to set different priorities for
these MPvDs as they like. For instance, ISPs may provide different
access network packages but the cellular access is normally more
expensive compared with the fixed broadband. Hence, subscriber may
want to use the cheapest fixed network for most of the time and only
to activate the more expensive one or the cellular interface when
there is occasionally need for bandwidth-boost. Moreover, this
bandwidth aggregation ability enabled by MPvD also make it possible
for ISPs and VSPs to provide more flexible services such as time-
variant price packages and bandwidth boosting plan for targeting
subscribes.
3.2. Application-specific traffic-steering
Some applications may have preferences on what network link to be
used. For example, download may want to use an interface with the
lowest cost and reasonable bandwidth, whereas live video streaming
application may want to use the most reliable and high speed
connection. New services provided by VSPs such as remote surgery and
HD video conference call may also consider network latency as an
important factor. These make the selection of interface critical
since an improper choice may cause the failure of the application.
Hence, it is extremely interesting if the interface can identify
itself for the applications, where the most reasonable choice can be
made.
MPvD currently identifies the interfaces with the associated network
configuration. It would be interesting if the network status and
quality information such as available bandwidth, latency and cost
etc. can also be maintained by MPvDs so that an application can make
the choice accordingly.
3.3. Network reliability
Another interesting scenario for MPvD to support bandwidth
aggregation is to increase network reliability by providing
protection connections. Given that a master interface and a
protection interface can by identified by MPvD, a PvD-aware node
should be able to trigger a switching between interfaces and tell the
application to re-establish its connection.
4. MPVD support of bandwidth aggregation
The MPvD should be able to identify the following network status and
quality information of the associated interface:
Geng & Deng Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Bandwidth aggregation for mif node July 2015
o Available bandwidth: The guaranteed bandwidth, assured bandwidth
and best-effort bandwidth of the associated interface
o Link cost: The cost of the link measured by the ISP price plan
o Latency: The latency of link associated with the corresponding
interface
The network status and quality information should be updated by the
ISP or VSP who maintains the corresponding MPvD. Applications should
have access to these information.
5. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
6. Security Considerations
TBA
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC6418] Blanchet, M. and P. Seite, "Multiple Interfaces and
Provisioning Domains Problem Statement", RFC 6418,
November 2011.
[RFC7368] Chown, T., Arkko, J., Brandt, A., Troan, O., and J. Weil,
"IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles", RFC 7368,
October 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Liang Geng
China Mobile
Email: liang.geng@hotmail.com
Geng & Deng Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Bandwidth aggregation for mif node July 2015
Hui Deng
China Mobile
Email: denghui@chinamobile.com
Geng & Deng Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 7]
