Considerations in the development of a QoS Architecture for CCNx-like ICN protocols
draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-03

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03

ICNRG                                                            D. Oran
Internet-Draft                       Network Systems Research and Design
Intended status: Informational                          December 3, 2019
Expires: June 5, 2020

 Considerations in the development of a QoS Architecture for CCNx-like
                             ICN protocols
                      draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-03

Abstract

   This is a position paper.  It documents the author's personal views
   on how Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities ought to be accommodated
   in ICN protocols like CCNx or NDN which employ flow-balanced
   Interest/Data exchanges and hop-by-hop forwarding state as their
   fundamental machinery.  It argues that such protocols demand a
   substantially different approach to QoS from that taken in TCP/IP,
   and proposes specific design patterns to achieve both classification
   and differentiated QoS treatment on both a flow and aggregate basis.
   It also considers the effect of caches as a resource in addition to
   memory, CPU and link bandwidth that should be subject to explicitly
   unfair resource allocation.  The proposed methods are intended to
   operate purely at the network layer, providing the primitives needed
   to achieve both transport and higher layer QoS objectives.  It
   explicitly excludes any discussion of Quality of Experience (QoE)
   which can only be assessed and controlled at the application layer or
   above.

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 https://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 June 5, 2020.

D. Oran                   Expires June 5, 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            ICN QoS Architecture             December 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Background on the nature and properties of Quality of Service
       in network protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Congestion Control basics relevant to ICN . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  What can we control to achieve QoS in ICN?  . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  How does this relate to QoS in TCP/IP?  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Why is ICN Different? Can we do Better? . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Equivalence class capabilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Topology interactions with QoS  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.3.  Specification of QoS treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.4.  ICN forwarding semantics effect on QoS  . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.5.  QoS interactions with Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  A strawman set of principles to guide QoS architecture for
       ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  What about the richer QoS semantics available with
           INTServ-like traffic control? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25

1.  Introduction

   The TCP/IP protocol suite used on today's Internet has over 30 years
   of accumulated research and engineering into the provision of Quality
   of Service machinery, employed with varying success in different
   environments.  ICN protocols like Named Data Networking (NDN [NDN])