Network Working Group R. Stewart
Internet-Draft Netflix, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track M. Tuexen
Expires: May 4, 2017 Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences
S. Loreto
Ericsson
R. Seggelmann
Metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH
October 31, 2016
Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the Stream Control
Transmission Protocol
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata-08.txt
Abstract
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is a message oriented
transport protocol supporting arbitrary large user messages. This
document adds a new data chunk to SCTP. This allows a sender to
interleave different user messages that would otherwise result in
head of line blocking at the sender.
Whenever an SCTP sender is allowed to send user data, it may choose
from multiple outgoing SCTP streams. Multiple ways for performing
this selection, called stream schedulers, are defined. A stream
scheduler can choose to either implement, or not implement, user
message interleaving.
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 May 4, 2017.
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. User Message Interleaving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. The I-DATA Chunk supporting User Message Interleaving . . 6
2.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. Sender Side Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3. Receiver Side Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Interaction with other SCTP Extensions . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1. SCTP Partial Reliability Extension . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.2. SCTP Stream Reconfiguration Extension . . . . . . . . 10
3. Stream Schedulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. First Come First Serve (SCTP_SS_FCFS) . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Round Robin Scheduler (SCTP_SS_RR) . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Round Robin Scheduler per Packet (SCTP_SS_RR_PKT) . . . . 11
3.4. Priority Based Scheduler (SCTP_SS_PRIO) . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5. Fair Bandwidth Scheduler (SCTP_SS_FB) . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Weighted Fair Queueing Scheduler (SCTP_SS_WFQ) . . . . . 11
4. Socket API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Exposition of the Stream Sequence Number (SSN) . . . . . 12
4.2. SCTP_ASSOC_CHANGE Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Socket Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.1. Enable or Disable the Support of User Message
Interleaving (SCTP_INTERLEAVING_SUPPORTED) . . . . . 13
4.3.2. Get or Set the Stream Scheduler
(SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.3. Get or Set the Stream Scheduler Parameter
(SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER_VALUE) . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Explicit EOR Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
When SCTP [RFC4960] was initially designed it was mainly envisioned
for the transport of small signaling messages. Late in the design
stage it was decided to add support for fragmentation and reassembly
of larger messages with the thought that someday Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] style signaling messages may also need to
use SCTP and a single Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) sized message
would be too small. Unfortunately this design decision, though valid
at the time, did not account for other applications that might send
large messages over SCTP. When such large messages are sent over
SCTP as specified in [RFC4960] can result in a form of sender side
head of line blocking (e.g., when the transmission of an urgent
message is blocked from transmission because the sender has started
transmission of another, possibly large, message). This head of line
blocking is caused by the use of the Transmission Sequence Number
(TSN) for three different purposes:
1. As an identifier for DATA chunks to provide a reliable transfer.
2. As an identifier for the sequence of fragments to allow
reassembly.
3. As a sequence number allowing to have up to 2**16 - 1 Stream
Sequence Numbers (SSNs) outstanding.
The protocol requires all fragments of a user message to have
consecutive TSNs. Therefore it is impossible for the sender to
interleave different user messages.
This document also defines several stream schedulers for general SCTP
associations. If support for user message interleaving has been
negotiated, several more schedulers are available.
The following Figure 1 illustrates the behaviour of a round robin
stream scheduler using DATA chunks. Please note that the use of such
a scheduler implies late TSN assignment but it can be used with an
[RFC4960] compliant implementation not supporting user message
interleaving.
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
+---+---+---+
| 0/0 |-+
+---+---+---+ |
| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+---+---+---+ +->|1/2|1/1|2/0|2/0|2/0|1/0|0/0|0/0|0/0|
|1/2|1/1|1/0|--->|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+---+---+---+ +->| 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+---+---+---+ |
| 2/0 |-+
+---+---+---+
+-------+
+-------+ |SID/SSN|
|SID/SSN| |-------|
+-------+ | TSN |
+-------+
Figure 1: Round Robin Scheduler without User Message Interleaving
This document describes a new Data chunk called I-DATA. This chunk
incorporates all the flags and fields except the Stream Sequence
Number (SSN) and properties of the current SCTP Data chunk but also
adds two new fields in its chunk header, the Fragment Sequence Number
(FSN) and the Message Identifier (MID). Then the FSN is only used
for reassembling all fragments having the same MID and ordering
property. The TSN is used only for the reliable transfer in
combination with Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) chunks.
In addition, the MID is also used for ensuring ordered delivery
instead of using the stream sequence number, which has been omitted
from the I-DATA chunk.
The following Figure 2 illustrates the behaviour of an interleaving
round robin stream scheduler using I-DATA chunks.
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
+---+---+---+
| 0/0 |-+
+---+---+---+ |
| +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+---+---+---+ +->|2/0/2|1/2/0|0/0/2|2/0/1|1/1/0|0/0/1|2/0/0|1/0/0|0/0/0|
|1/2|1/1|1/0|--->|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
+---+---+---+ +->| 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+---+---+---+ |
| 2/0 |-+
+---+---+---+
+-----------+
+-------+ |SID/MID/FSN|
|SID/MID| |-----------|
+-------+ | TSN |
+-----------+
Figure 2: Round Robin Scheduler with User Message Interleaving
The support of the I-DATA chunk is negotiated during the association
setup using the Supported Extensions Parameter as defined in
[RFC5061]. If I-DATA support has been negotiated for an association
I-DATA chunks are used for all user-messages. DATA chunks are not
permitted when I-DATA support has been negotiated. It should be
noted, that an SCTP implementation needs to support the coexistence
of associations using DATA chunks and associations using I-DATA
chunks.
This document specifies in Section 2 the user message interleaving by
defining the I-DATA chunk, the procedures to use it and its
interactions with other SCTP extensions. Multiple stream schedulers
are defined in Section 3 followed by describing in Section 4 an
extension to the socket API for using what is specified in this
document.
1.2. Conventions
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 [RFC2119].
2. User Message Interleaving
The interleaving of user messages is required for WebRTC Datachannels
as specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel].
An SCTP implementation supporting user message interleaving is
REQUIRED to support the coexistence of associations using DATA chunks
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
and associations using I-DATA chunks. If an SCTP implementation
supports user message interleaving and the extension described in
[RFC3758] or [RFC6525], it is REQUIRED to implement the corresponding
changes specified in Section 2.3.
2.1. The I-DATA Chunk supporting User Message Interleaving
The following Figure 3 shows the new I-DATA chunk allowing user
messages interleaving.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 64 | Res |I|U|B|E| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TSN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stream Identifier | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Protocol Identifier / Fragment Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ User Data /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: I-DATA chunk format
The only differences between the I-DATA chunk in Figure 3 and the
DATA chunk defined in [RFC4960] and [RFC7053] is the addition of the
new Message Identifier (MID) and Fragment Sequence Number (FSN) and
the removal of the Stream Sequence Number (SSN). The length of the
I-DATA chunk header is 20 bytes, which is 4 bytes more than the
length of the DATA chunk header defined in [RFC4960].
The new fields are:
Reserved: 16 bits (unsigned integer)
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to 0 by the sender and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Message Identifier (MID): 32 bits (unsigned integer)
The MID is the same for all fragments of a user message, it is
used to determine which fragments (enumerated by the FSN) belong
to the same user message. For ordered user messages, the MID is
also used by the SCTP receiver to deliver the user messages in the
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
correct order to the upper layer (similar to the SSN of the DATA
chunk defined in [RFC4960]). The sender uses two counters for
each outgoing stream, one for ordered messages, one for unordered
messages. All counters are independent and initially 0. They are
incremented by 1 for each user message. Please note that the
serial number arithmetic defined in [RFC1982] using SERIAL_BITS =
32 applies. Therefore the sender MUST NOT have more than 2**31 -
1 ordered messages for each outgoing stream in flight and MUST NOT
have more than 2**31 - 1 unordered messages for each outgoing
stream in flight. Please note that the MID is in "network byte
order", a.k.a. Big Endian.
Payload Protocol Identifier (PPID) / Fragment Sequence Number (FSN):
32 bits (unsigned integer)
If the B bit is set, this field contains the PPID of the user
message. Note that in this case, this field is NOT touched by an
SCTP implementation; therefore, its byte order is not necessarily
in network byte order. The upper layer is responsible for any
byte order conversions to this field, similar to the PPID of DATA
chunks. In this case the FSN is implicitly considered to be 0.
If the B bit is not set, this field contains the FSN. The FSN is
used to enumerate all fragments of a single user message, starting
from 0 and incremented by 1. The last fragment of a message MUST
have the 'E' bit set. Note that the FSN MAY wrap completely
multiple times allowing arbitrary large user messages. For the
FSN the serial number arithmetic defined in [RFC1982] applies with
SERIAL_BITS = 32. Therefore a sender MUST NOT have more than
2**31 - 1 fragments of a single user message in flight. Please
note that the FSN is in "network byte order", a.k.a. Big Endian.
2.2. Procedures
This subsection describes how the support of the I-DATA chunk is
negotiated and how the I-DATA chunk is used by the sender and
receiver.
2.2.1. Negotiation
A sender MUST NOT send an I-DATA chunk unless both peers have
indicated its support of the I-DATA chunk type within the Supported
Extensions Parameter as defined in [RFC5061]. If I-DATA support has
been negotiated on an association, I-DATA chunks MUST be used for all
user messages and DATA-chunk MUST NOT be used. If I-DATA support has
not been negotiated on an association, DATA chunks MUST be used for
all user messages and I-DATA chunks MUST NOT be used.
A sender MUST NOT use the I-DATA chunk unless the user has requested
that use (e.g. via the socket API, see Section 4.3). This constraint
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
is made since usage of this chunk requires that the application be
willing to interleave messages upon reception within an association.
This is not the default choice within the socket API (see [RFC6458])
thus the user MUST indicate support to the protocol of the reception
of completely interleaved messages. Note that for stacks that do not
implement [RFC6458] they may use other methods to indicate
interleaved message support and thus enable the usage of the I-DATA
chunk, the key is that the stack MUST know the application has
indicated its choice in wanting to use the extension.
2.2.2. Sender Side Considerations
Sender side usage of the I-DATA chunk is quite simple. Instead of
using the TSN for fragmentation purposes, the sender uses the new FSN
field to indicate which fragment number is being sent. The first
fragment MUST have the 'B' bit set. The last fragment MUST have the
'E' bit set. All other fragments MUST NOT have the 'B' or 'E' bit
set. All other properties of the existing SCTP DATA chunk also apply
to the I-DATA chunk, i.e. congestion control as well as receiver
window conditions MUST be observed as defined in [RFC4960].
Note that the usage of this chunk implies the late assignment of the
actual TSN to any chunk being sent. Each I-DATA chunk uses a single
TSN. This way messages from other streams may be interleaved with
the fragmented message. Please note that this is the only form of
interleaving support. For example, it is not possible to interleave
multiple ordered or unordered user messages from the same stream.
The sender MUST NOT be fragmenting more than one user message in any
given stream at any time. At any time, a sender MAY fragment
multiple user messages, each of them on different streams.
The sender MUST assign TSN's in a way that the receiver can make
progress. One way to achieve this is to assign the later fragments
of a user message a higher TSN and send out the TSNs in sequence.
2.2.3. Receiver Side Considerations
Upon reception of an SCTP packet containing an I-DATA chunk if the
message needs to be reassembled, then the receiver MUST use the FSN
for reassembly of the message and not the TSN. The receiver MUST NOT
make any assumption about the TSN assignments of the sender. Note
that a non-fragmented message is indicated by the fact that both the
'E' and 'B' bits are set. A message (either ordered or unordered)
may be identified as being fragmented by seeing that not both bits
have been set.
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
2.3. Interaction with other SCTP Extensions
The usage of the I-DATA chunk might interfere with other SCTP
extensions. Future SCTP extensions MUST describe if and how they
interfere with the usage of I-DATA chunks. For the SCTP extensions
already defined when this document was published, the details are
given in the following subsections.
2.3.1. SCTP Partial Reliability Extension
When the SCTP extension defined in [RFC3758] is used in combination
with the user message interleaving extension, the new I-FORWARD-TSN
chunk MUST be used instead of the FORWARD-TSN chunk. The difference
between the FORWARD-TSN and the I-FORWARD-TSN chunk is that the
16-bit Stream Sequence Number (SSN) has been replaced by the 32-bit
Message Identifier (MID) and the largest skipped MID can also be
provided for unordered messages. Therefore the principle applied to
ordered message when using FORWARD-TSN chunks is applied to ordered
and unordered messages when using I-FORWARD-TSN chunks.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 194 | Flags = 0x00 | Length = Variable |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| New Cumulative TSN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stream Identifier | Reserved |U|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Stream Identifier | Reserved |U|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: I-FORWARD-TSN chunk format
The relevant new fields are:
Stream Identifier (SID): 16-bits (unsigned integer)
This field holds the stream number this entry refers to.
Reserved: 15 bits
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to 0 by the sender and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
U bit: 1 bit
The U bit specifies if the Message Identifier of this entry refers
unordered messages (U bit is set) or ordered messages (U bit is
not set).
Message Identifier (MID): 32 bits (unsigned integer)
This field holds the largest Message Identifier for ordered or
unordered messages indicated by the U-bit that was skipped for the
stream specified by the Stream Identifier. For ordered messages
this is similar to the FORWARD-TSN chunk, just replacing the
16-bit SSN by the 32-bit MID.
The FORWARD-TSN chunk MUST be used in combination with the DATA chunk
and MUST NOT be used in combination with the I-DATA chunk. The I-
FORWARD-TSN chunk MUST be used in combination with the I-DATA chunk
and MUST NOT be used in combination with the DATA chunk.
Support for the I-FORWARD-TSN chunk is negotiated during the SCTP
association setup via the Supported Extensions Parameter as defined
in [RFC5061]. Only if both end points support the I-DATA chunk and
the I-FORWARD-TSN chunk, the partial reliability extension can be
used in combination with user message interleaving.
2.3.2. SCTP Stream Reconfiguration Extension
When an association resets the SSN using the SCTP extension defined
in [RFC6525], the two counters (one for the ordered messages, one for
the unordered messages) used for the MID MUST be reset to 0.
Since most schedulers, especially all schedulers supporting user
message interleaving, require late TSN assignment, it should be noted
that the implementation of [RFC6525] needs to handle this.
3. Stream Schedulers
This section defines several stream schedulers. The stream
schedulers may behave differently depending on whether user message
interleaving has been negotiated for the association or not. The set
of schedulers being implemented is implementation dependent.
3.1. First Come First Serve (SCTP_SS_FCFS)
The simple first-come, first-serve scheduler of user messages is
used. It just passes through the messages in the order in which they
have been delivered by the application. No modification of the order
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
is done at all. The usage of user message interleaving does not
affect the sending of the chunks, except that I-DATA chunks are used
instead of DATA chunks.
3.2. Round Robin Scheduler (SCTP_SS_RR)
When not using user message interleaving, this scheduler provides a
fair scheduling based on the number of user messages by cycling
around non-empty stream queues. When using user message
interleaving, this scheduler provides a fair scheduling based on the
number of I-DATA chunks by cycling around non-empty stream queues.
3.3. Round Robin Scheduler per Packet (SCTP_SS_RR_PKT)
This is a round-robin scheduler but bundles only DATA or I-DATA
chunks referring to the same stream in a packet. This minimizes
head-of-line blocking when a packet is lost because only a single
stream is affected.
3.4. Priority Based Scheduler (SCTP_SS_PRIO)
Scheduling of user messages with strict priorities is used. The
priority is configurable per outgoing SCTP stream. Streams having a
higher priority will be scheduled first and when multiple streams
have the same priority, the scheduling between them is implementation
specific. When using user message interleaving, the sending of lower
priority user messages will not block the sending of higher priority
user messages.
3.5. Fair Bandwidth Scheduler (SCTP_SS_FB)
A fair bandwidth distribution between the streams is used. This
scheduler considers the lengths of the messages of each stream and
schedules them in a certain way to maintain an equal bandwidth for
all streams. The details are implementation specific. Using user
message interleaving allows for a better realization of the fair
bandwidth usage.
3.6. Weighted Fair Queueing Scheduler (SCTP_SS_WFQ)
A weighted fair queueing scheduler between the streams is used. The
weight is configurable per outgoing SCTP stream. This scheduler
considers the lengths of the messages of each stream and schedules
them in a certain way to use the bandwidth according to the given
weights. The details are implementation specific. Using user
message interleaving allows for a better realization of the bandwidth
usage according to the given weights.
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
This scheduler in combination with user message interleaving is used
for WebRTC Datachannels as specified in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel].
4. Socket API Considerations
This section describes how the socket API defined in [RFC6458] is
extended to allow applications to use the extension described in this
document.
Please note that this section is informational only.
4.1. Exposition of the Stream Sequence Number (SSN)
The socket API defined in [RFC6458] defines several structures in
which the SSN of a received user message is exposed to the
application. The list of these structures includes:
struct sctp_sndrcvinfo
Specified in Section 5.3.2 of [RFC6458] and marked as deprecated.
struct sctp_extrcvinfo
Specified in Section 5.3.3 of [RFC6458] and marked as deprecated.
struct sctp_rcvinfo
Specified in Section 5.3.5 of [RFC6458].
If user message interleaving is used, the lower order 16 bits of the
MID are used as the SSN when filling out these structures.
4.2. SCTP_ASSOC_CHANGE Notification
When an SCTP_ASSOC_CHANGE notification is delivered indicating a
sac_state of SCTP_COMM_UP or SCTP_RESTART for an SCTP association
where both peers support the I-DATA chunk,
SCTP_ASSOC_SUPPORTS_INTERLEAVING should be listed in the sac_info
field.
4.3. Socket Options
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+
| option name | data type | get | set |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+
| SCTP_INTERLEAVING_SUPPORTED | struct sctp_assoc_value | X | X |
| SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER | struct sctp_assoc_value | X | X |
| SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER_VALUE | struct | X | X |
| | sctp_stream_value | | |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
4.3.1. Enable or Disable the Support of User Message Interleaving
(SCTP_INTERLEAVING_SUPPORTED)
This socket option allows the enabling or disabling of the
negotiation of user message interleaving support for future
associations. For existing associations it allows to query whether
user message interleaving support was negotiated or not on a
particular association.
User message interleaving is disabled per default.
This socket option uses IPPROTO_SCTP as its level and
SCTP_INTERLEAVING_SUPPORTED as its name. It can be used with
getsockopt() and setsockopt(). The socket option value uses the
following structure defined in [RFC6458]:
struct sctp_assoc_value {
sctp_assoc_t assoc_id;
uint32_t assoc_value;
};
assoc_id: This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style sockets.
For one-to-many style sockets, this parameter indicates upon which
association the user is performing an action. The special
sctp_assoc_t SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC can also be used, it is an error to
use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC in assoc_id.
assoc_value: A non-zero value encodes the enabling of user message
interleaving whereas a value of 0 encodes the disabling of user
message interleaving.
sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support
SCTP_INTERLEAVING_SUPPORTED.
An application using user message interleaving should also set the
fragment interleave level to 2 by using the SCTP_FRAGMENT_INTERLEAVE
socket option specified in Section 8.1.20 of [RFC6458]. This allows
the interleaving of user messages from different streams. Please
note that it does not allow the interleaving of ordered and unordered
user messages on the same stream. Failure to set this option can
possibly lead to application deadlock. Some implementations might
therefore put some restrictions on setting combinations of these
values.
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
4.3.2. Get or Set the Stream Scheduler (SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER)
A stream scheduler can be selected with the SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER
option for setsockopt(). The struct sctp_assoc_value is used to
specify the association for which the scheduler should be changed and
the value of the desired algorithm.
The definition of struct sctp_assoc_value is the same as in
[RFC6458]:
struct sctp_assoc_value {
sctp_assoc_t assoc_id;
uint32_t assoc_value;
};
assoc_id: Holds the identifier for the association of which the
scheduler should be changed. The special
SCTP_{FUTURE|CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC can also be used. This parameter
is ignored for one-to-one style sockets.
assoc_value: This specifies which scheduler is used. The following
constants can be used:
SCTP_SS_DEFAULT: The default scheduler used by the SCTP
implementation. Typical values are SCTP_SS_FCFS or SCTP_SS_RR.
SCTP_SS_FCFS: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.1.
SCTP_SS_RR: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.2.
SCTP_SS_RR_PKT: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.3.
SCTP_SS_PRIO: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.4. The
priority can be assigned with the sctp_stream_value struct.
The higher the assigned value, the lower the priority, that is
the default value 0 is the highest priority and therefore the
default scheduling will be used if no priorities have been
assigned.
SCTP_SS_FB: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.5.
SCTP_SS_WFQ: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.6. The
weight can be assigned with the sctp_stream_value struct.
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
4.3.3. Get or Set the Stream Scheduler Parameter
(SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER_VALUE)
Some schedulers require additional information to be set for
individual streams as shown in the following table:
+-----------------+-----------------+
| name | per stream info |
+-----------------+-----------------+
| SCTP_SS_DEFAULT | n/a |
| SCTP_SS_FCFS | no |
| SCTP_SS_RR | no |
| SCTP_SS_RR_PKT | no |
| SCTP_SS_PRIO | yes |
| SCTP_SS_FB | no |
| SCTP_SS_WFQ | yes |
+-----------------+-----------------+
This is achieved with the SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER_VALUE option and the
corresponding struct sctp_stream_value. The definition of struct
sctp_stream_value is as follows:
struct sctp_stream_value {
sctp_assoc_t assoc_id;
uint16_t stream_id;
uint16_t stream_value;
};
assoc_id: Holds the identifier for the association of which the
scheduler should be changed. The special
SCTP_{FUTURE|CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC can also be used. This parameter
is ignored for one-to-one style sockets.
stream_id: Holds the stream id for the stream for which additional
information has to be provided.
stream_value: The meaning of this field depends on the scheduler
specified. It is ignored when the scheduler does not need
additional information.
4.4. Explicit EOR Marking
Using explicit End of Record (EOR) marking for an SCTP association
supporting user message interleaving allows the user to interleave
the sending of user messages on different streams.
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
5. IANA Considerations
[NOTE to RFC-Editor:
"RFCXXXX" is to be replaced by the RFC number you assign this
document.
]
[NOTE to RFC-Editor:
The suggested values for the chunk type and the chunk flags are
tentative and to be confirmed by IANA.
]
This document (RFCXXXX) is the reference for all registrations
described in this section.
A new chunk type has to be assigned by IANA. IANA should assign this
value from the pool of chunks with the upper two bits set to '01'.
This requires an additional line in the "Chunk Types" registry for
SCTP:
+----------+-------------------------+-----------+
| ID Value | Chunk Type | Reference |
+----------+-------------------------+-----------+
| 64 | New DATA chunk (I-DATA) | [RFCXXXX] |
+----------+-------------------------+-----------+
The registration table as defined in [RFC6096] for the chunk flags of
this chunk type is initially given by the following table:
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
| Chunk Flag Value | Chunk Flag Name | Reference |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 0x01 | E bit | [RFCXXXX] |
| 0x02 | B bit | [RFCXXXX] |
| 0x04 | U bit | [RFCXXXX] |
| 0x08 | I bit | [RFCXXXX] |
| 0x10 | Unassigned | |
| 0x20 | Unassigned | |
| 0x40 | Unassigned | |
| 0x80 | Unassigned | |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------+
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
6. Security Considerations
This document does not add any additional security considerations in
addition to the ones given in [RFC4960] and [RFC6458].
It should be noted that the application has to consent that it is
willing to do the more complex reassembly support required for user
message interleaving.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Gorry Fairhurst, Christer Holmberg, Marcelo
Ricardo Leitner, Karen E. Egede Nielsen, Irene Ruengeler, Felix
Weinrank, and Lixia Zhang for her invaluable comments.
This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 644334
(NEAT). The views expressed are solely those of the author(s).
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3758, May 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758>.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
[RFC5061] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M.
Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5061, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5061>.
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
[RFC6096] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) Chunk Flags Registration", RFC 6096,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6096, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6096>.
[RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration",
RFC 6525, DOI 10.17487/RFC6525, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6525>.
[RFC7053] Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and R. Stewart, "SACK-
IMMEDIATELY Extension for the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol", RFC 7053, DOI 10.17487/RFC7053, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7053>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC6458] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Poon, K., Lei, P., and V.
Yasevich, "Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6458,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6458, December 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6458>.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (work in
progress), January 2015.
Authors' Addresses
Randall R. Stewart
Netflix, Inc.
Chapin, SC 29036
United States
Email: randall@lakerest.net
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Stream Schedulers and the I-DATA Chunk October 2016
Michael Tuexen
Muenster University of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstrasse 39
48565 Steinfurt
Germany
Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com
Robin Seggelmann
Metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH
Leopoldstrasse 146
80804 Muenchen
Germany
Email: rfc@robin-seggelmann.com
Stewart, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 19]