Internet DRAFT - draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services
draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services
Transport Area T. Moncaster, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Crowcroft
Intended status: Informational University of Cambridge
Expires: June 7, 2014 M. Welzl
University of Oslo
D. Ros
Telecom Bretagne
M. Tuexen
Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences
December 4, 2013
Problem Statement: Why the IETF Needs Defined Transport Services
draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services-01
Abstract
The IETF has defined a wide range of transport protocols over the
past three decades. However, the majority of these have failed to
find traction within the Internet. This has left developers with
little choice but to use TCP and UDP for most applications. In many
cases the developer isn't interested in which transport protocol they
should use. Rather they are interested in the set of services that
the protocol provides to their application. TCP provides a very rich
set of transport services, but offers no flexibility over which
services can be used. By contrast, UDP provides a minimal set of
services.
As a consequence many developers have begun to write application-
level transport protocols that operate on top of UDP and offer them
some of the flexibility they are looking for. We believe that this
highlights a real problem: applications would like to be able to
specify the services they receive from the transport protocol, but
currently transport protocols are not defined in this fashion. There
is an additional problem relating to how to ensure new protocols are
able to be adopted within the Internet, but that is beyond the scope
of this problem statement.
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/.
Moncaster, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Transport Services December 2013
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 June 7, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Changes in This Version (to be removed by RFC Editor) . . 3
2. Transport Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Identifying Transport Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Exposing Transport Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Why Now? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Contributors and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Comments Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
The IETF has defined a wide array of transport protocols including
UDP [RFC0768], TCP [RFC0793], SCTP [RFC4960], UDP-Lite [RFC3828],
DCCP [RFC4340] and MPTCP [RFC6824]. In most cases new protocols have
been defined because the IETF has established that there is a need
for a set of behaviours than cannot be offered by any existing
transport protocol.
Moncaster, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Transport Services December 2013
However, for an application programmer, using protocols other than
TCP or UDP can be hard: not all protocols are available everywhere,
hence a fall-back solution to TCP or UDP must be implemented. Some
protocols provide the same services in different ways. Layering
decisions must be made (e.g. should a protocol be used natively or
over UDP?). Because of these complications, programmers often resort
to either using TCP (even if there is a mismatch between the services
provided by TCP and the services needed by the application) or
implementing their own customised solution over UDP, and the
opportunity of benefiting from other transport protocols is lost.
Since all these protocols were developed to provide services that
solve particular problems, the inability of applications to make use
of them is in itself a problem. Implementing a new solution e.g.
over UDP also means re-inventing the wheel (or, rather, re-
implementing the code) for a number of general network functions such
as methods to interoperate through NATs and PMTUD.
We believe this mismatch between the application layer and transport
layer can be addressed in a simple fashion. If an API allowed
applications to request transport services without specifying the
protocol, the transport system underneath could automatically try to
make the best of its available resources. It could use available
transport protocols in a way that is most beneficial for applications
and without the application needing to worry about problems with
middlebox traversal. Adopting this approach could give more freedom
for diversification to designers of Operating Systems.
1.1. Changes in This Version (to be removed by RFC Editor)
From draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services-00 to -01: Editorial
corrections and clarifications including:
* Updated Section 2.1 to highlight that we will take a hybrid
approach to identifying Transport Services, both top down (by
examining existing APIs) and bottom up (by looking at existing
transport protocols).
* Updated Section 2.2 to commit to delivering at least one
example API for this work.
* Replaced Section 4. The new version makes it clear that we
will preserve the status quo where the transport may or may not
choose to implement security.
2. Transport Services
The transport layer provides many services both to the end
application (e.g. multiplexing, flow control, ordering, reliability)
Moncaster, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Transport Services December 2013
and to the network (e.g. congestion control). For the purposes of
this document we define Transport Services as follows:
o A Transport Service is any service provided by the transport layer
that can only be correctly implemented with information from the
application.
The key word here is "information" -- many existing transport
protocols function perfectly adequately because the choice of
protocol implicitly includes information about the desired transport
capabilities. For instance the choice of TCP implies a desire for
reliable, in-order data delivery. However we think that such
implicit information is not always sufficient. The rest of this
section explains how we propose to identify Transport Services and
how those services might then be exposed to the application.
2.1. Identifying Transport Services
One of the key aspects of this work is how to identify which
Transport Services should actually be supported. We are taking a
two-pronged approach. Rather than trying to identify every possible
service that popular applications might need, we will survey a given
set of common APIs that applications use to communicate across the
network. We will complement this with a bottom-up approach where we
establish the set of services that have already been published in
RFCs coming from the Transport Area. This way, much of the
discussion about the need to specify these services has already taken
place, and it is unnecessary to re-visit those discussions. It is
our hope that this approach will lead to identifying a set of service
primitives that can be combined to offer a rich set of services to
the application.
2.2. Exposing Transport Services
These Transport Services would be exposed to the application via an
API. The definition of such an API and the functionality underneath
the API are beyond the scope of this problem statement. We briefly
describe three possible approaches below.
One approach could be to develop a transport system that fully
operates inside the Operating System. This transport system would
provide all the defined services for which it can use TCP as a fall-
back at the expense of efficiency (e.g., TCP's reliable in-order
delivery is a special case of reliable unordered delivery, but it may
be less efficient). To test whether a particular transport is
available it could take the Happy Eyeballs
[I-D.wing-tsvwg-happy-eyeballs-sctp] approach proposed for SCTP -- if
the SCTP response arrives too late then the connection just uses TCP
Moncaster, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Transport Services December 2013
and the SCTP association information could be cached so that a future
connection request to the same destination IP address can
automatically use it.
Polyversal TCP [PVTCP] offers another possible approach. This starts
by opening a TCP connection and then attempts to establish other
paths using different transports. The TCP connection ensures there's
always a stable fallback. Having established the initial connection,
PVTCP can then use service requests coming through setsockopt() to
select the most appropriate transport from the available set.
Another approach could be to always rely on UDP only, and develop a
whole new transport protocol above UDP which provides all the
services, using a single UDP port. Instead of falling back to TCP,
this transport system could return an error in case there is no other
instance of the transport system available on the other side; the
first packets could be used to signal which service is being
requested to the other side (e.g., unordered delivery requires the
receiving end to be aware of it).
3. Why Now?
So why do we need to deal with this issue now? There are several
answers. Firstly, after several decades of dominance by various
flavours of TCP and UDP (plus limited deployment of SCTP [RFC4960]),
transport protocols are undergoing significant changes. Recent
standards allow for parallel usage of multiple paths (MPTCP [RFC6824]
and CMT-SCTP [I-D.tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath]) while other standards
allow for scavenger-type traffic (LEDBAT [RFC6817]). What sets these
apart from e.g. DCCP [RFC4340] is that they have already seen
deployment in the wild -- one of the Internet's most popular
applications, BitTorrent, uses LEDBAT and MPTCP is already seeing
deployment in major operating systems [Bonaventure-Blog]. Meanwhile
there is a trend towards tunnelling transports inside UDP -- SCTP
over DTLS over UDP is now being shipped with a popular browser in
order to support WebRTC [RFC6951][I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]
while RTMFP [I-D.thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp] and QUIC [QUIC] are recent
examples of transport protocols that are implemented over UDP in user
space. In a similar vane, Minion [I-D.iyengar-minion-protocol] is a
proposal to realise some SCTP-like services with a downwards-
compatible extension to TCP.
All of a sudden, application developers are faced with a
heterogeneous, complex set of protocols to choose from. Every
protocol has its pro's and con's, but often the reasons for making a
particular choice depend not on the application's preferences but on
the environment (e.g., the choice of Minion vs. SCTP would depend on
whether SCTP could successfully be used on a given network path).
Moncaster, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Transport Services December 2013
Choosing a protocol that isn't guaranteed to work requires
implementing a fall-back method to e.g. TCP, and making the best
possible choice at all times may require sophisticated network
measurement techniques. The process could be improved by using a
cache to learn which protocols previously worked on a path, but this
wouldn't always work in a cloud environment where virtual machines
can and do migrate between physical nodes.
We therefore argue that it is necessary to provide mechanisms that
automate the choice and usage of the transport protocol underneath
the API that is exposed to applications. As a first step towards
such automation, we need to define the services that the transport
layer should expose to an application (as opposed to today's typical
choice of TCP and UDP).
4. Security Considerations
Whether or not to enable TLS[RFC5246] is currently left up to
individual protocol implementations to decide. While there is some
debate about whether this is correct we have chosen to keep the
status quo.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request to IANA although in future an IANA
register of Transport Services may be required.
6. Conclusions
After decades of relative stagnation the last few years have seen
many new transport protocols being developed and adopted in the wild.
This evolution has been driven by the changing needs of application
developers and has been enabled by moving transport services into the
application or by tunnelling over an underlying UDP connection.
Application developers are now faced with a genuine choice of
different protocols with no clear mechanism for choosing between
them. At the same time, the still-limited deployment of some
protocols means that the developer must always provide a fall-back to
an alternative transport if they want to guarantee the connection
will work. This is not a sustainable state of affairs and we believe
that in future a new transport API will be needed that provides the
mechanisms to facilitate the choice of transport protocol. The first
step towards this is to identify the set of Transport Services that a
transport protocol is able to expose to the application. We propose
doing this in a bottom-up fashion, starting from the list of services
available in transport protocols that are specified in RFCs.
Moncaster, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Transport Services December 2013
7. Contributors and Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the many people that have contributed to this effort
so far including Arjuna Sathiaseelan, Jon Crowcroft, Marwan Fayed and
Bernd Reuther among many others.
D. Ros and M. Welzl were part-funded by the European Community under
its Seventh Framework Programme through the Reducing Internet
Transport Latency (RITE) project (ICT-317700). T. Moncaster and J.
Crowcroft are part-funded by the European Union's Seventh Framework
Programme FP7/2007-2013 under the Trilogy 2 project, grant agreement
no. 317756.
8. Comments Solicited
To be removed by RFC Editor: This draft is the first step towards an
IETF BoF on Transport Services. Comments and questions are
encouraged and very welcome. They can be addressed to the current
mailing list <transport-services@ifi.uio.no> and/or to the authors.
We also have a website at <https://sites.google.com/site/
transportprotocolservices/>
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and
G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol
(UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
4960, September 2007.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
Moncaster, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Transport Services December 2013
[RFC6817] Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., Iyengar, J., and M. Kuehlewind,
"Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)", RFC 6817,
December 2012.
[RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
"TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
Addresses", RFC 6824, January 2013.
[RFC6951] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host
to End-Host Communication", RFC 6951, May 2013.
9.2. Informative References
[Bonaventure-Blog]
Bonaventure, O., "Blog Entry: MPTCP used in iOS 7",
September 2013.
[I-D.dreibholz-tsvwg-sctpsocket-multipath]
Dreibholz, T., Becke, M., and H. Adhari, "SCTP Socket API
Extensions for Concurrent Multipath Transfer", draft-
dreibholz-tsvwg-sctpsocket-multipath-06 (work in
progress), July 2013.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]
Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "DTLS
Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
dtls-encaps-02 (work in progress), October 2013.
[I-D.iyengar-minion-protocol]
Jana, J., Cheshire, S., and J. Graessley, "Minion - Wire
Protocol", draft-iyengar-minion-protocol-02 (work in
progress), October 2013.
[I-D.thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp]
Thornburgh, M., "Adobe's Secure Real-Time Media Flow
Protocol", draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-10 (work in
progress), July 2013.
[I-D.tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath]
Amer, P., Becke, M., Dreibholz, T., Ekiz, N., Jana, J.,
Natarajan, P., Stewart, R., and M. Tuexen, "Load Sharing
for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)",
draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath-07 (work in progress),
October 2013.
[I-D.wing-tsvwg-happy-eyeballs-sctp]
Moncaster, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Transport Services December 2013
Wing, D. and P. Natarajan, "Happy Eyeballs: Trending
Towards Success with SCTP", draft-wing-tsvwg-happy-
eyeballs-sctp-02 (work in progress), October 2010.
[PVTCP] Nabi, Z., Moncaster, T., Madhavapeddy, A., Hand, S., and
J. Crowcroft, "Evolving TCP: how hard can it be?",
Proceedings of ACM CoNEXT 2012, December 2012.
[QUIC] Roskind, J., "Quick UDP Internet Connections", June 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Toby Moncaster (editor)
University of Cambridge
Computer Laboratory
J.J. Thomson Avenue
Cambridge CB3 0FD
UK
Phone: +44 1223 763654
EMail: toby.moncaster@cl.cam.ac.uk
Jon Crowcroft
University of Cambridge
Computer Laboratory
J.J. Thomson Avenue
Cambridge CB3 0FD
UK
Phone: +44 1223 763633
EMail: jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk
Michael Welzl
University of Oslo
PO Box 1080 Blindern
Oslo N-0316
Norway
Phone: +47 22 85 24 20
EMail: michawe@ifi.uio.no
Moncaster, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Transport Services December 2013
David Ros
Telecom Bretagne
Rue de la Chataigneraie, CS 17607
35576 Cesson Sevigne cedex
France
Phone: +33 2 99 12 70 46
EMail: david.ros@telecom-bretagne.eu
Michael Tuexen
Muenster University of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstrasse 39
Steinfurt 48565
DE
EMail: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Moncaster, et al. Expires June 7, 2014 [Page 10]
