COINRG I. Kunze
Internet-Draft K. Wehrle
Intended status: Informational RWTH Aachen University
Expires: 12 August 2021 D. Trossen
Huawei
8 February 2021
Transport Protocol Issues of In-Network Computing Systems
draft-kunze-coinrg-transport-issues-04
Abstract
Today's transport protocols offer a variety of functionality based on
the notion that the network is to be treated as an unreliable
communication medium. Some, like TCP, establish a reliable
connection on top of the unreliable network while others, like UDP,
simply transmit datagrams without a connection and without guarantees
into the network. These fundamental differences in functionality
have a significant impact on how COIN approaches can be designed and
implemented. Furthermore, traditional transport protocols are not
designed for the multi-party communication principles that underlie
many COIN approaches. This document raises several questions
regarding the use of transport protocols in connection with COIN.
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 12 August 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Research questions and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Related concepts and efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Flow granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Research questions and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Related concepts and efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Collective Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Research questions and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Related concepts and efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Research questions and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Related concepts and efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Research questions and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Related concepts and efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1.1. Research questions and challenges . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1.2. Related concepts and efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Flow/Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2.1. Research questions and challenges . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2.2. Related concepts and efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Summary of related research and standardization efforts . . . 15
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
1. Introduction
A fundamental consideration for the Internet's design is that
functions can be implemented correctly and completely only with the
knowledge of the applications, as formulated in [E2E]. This choice
is reflected in the end-to-end (E2E) principle in that end-hosts
perform most, if not all, relevant computations. The network only
performs transparent, reasonable operations such as delivering the
packets without modifying them with transport protocols designed to
facilitate the direct communication between those end-hosts.
[E2E], however, does consider that "sometimes an incomplete version
of the function provided by the communication system may be useful as
a performance enhancement". We link this consideration to the field
of computing in the networking (COIN), which encourages explicit
computations in the network, introducing an intertwined complexity as
the computations on the end-hosts depend on the functionality
deployed in the network. Such thinking, to some extent, challenges
traditional ``end-to-end'' transport protocols as they are not
designed to address in-network computation entities or to include
more than two devices into a communication, even for inherent
functionalities provided by the transport protocol. Some of
resulting problems when considering in-network computation in the
context of an overall E2E problem are already presented in
[I-D.draft-kutscher-coinrg-dir-02].
This draft focusses on the potential opportunities and research
questions for the design of transport protocols that may assume the
availability of in-network computing capabilities, including the
possible collaboration with other IRTF and IETF groups, such as PAN
RG, the IETF transport area in general, or the LOOPS BOF, for finding
suitable solutions.
2. Terminology
COIN element: Device on which COIN functionality can be deployed
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
3. Addressing
The traditional addressing concept of the Internet is that end-hosts
directly address each other with all computational intelligence
residing at the network edges. With COIN, computations move into the
network and need to be integrated into the established
infrastructure. In systems where the whole network is under the
control of the network operator this integration can be implemented
by explicitly adjusting the communication schemes based on the COIN
functionality. Considering larger scales, this approach of manually
adjusting traffic patterns and applications to correctly incorporate
changes made by the network is not feasible.
What is needed are ways to specify which kind of functionality should
be applied to the transmitted data on the path inside the network and
maybe even where or by whom the execution should take place.
Such orchestration functionality could for example be implemented
using an indirection mechanism which routes a packet along a pre-
defined or dynamically chosen path which then realizes the desired
functionality. One possibility is to directly route on service or
functionality identifiers instead of sending individual packets
between locator-addressed network elements
[I-D.draft-sarathchandra-coin-appcentres-03]. While this aligns the
routing more clearly with the communication between computational
elements, selecting the 'right' computational endpoint (out of
possibly several ones) becomes critical to the proper functioning of
the overall service.
3.1. Research questions and challenges
1. How should end-hosts address the COIN functionality?
2. How can the treatment of the transmitted data, i.e., which COIN
functionality to execute, be represented in the addressing of the
request?
3. How can end-hosts direct computational requests to different
computational endpoints of the same service in different network
locations, i.e., decide where the COIN functionality is executed?
4. How to decide which computational endpoint to choose (from
possibly several ones existing in the network)?
5. How can devices which do not implement COIN functionality be
integrated into the systems without breaking the COIN or legacy
functionality?
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
3.2. Related concepts and efforts
* Segment and Source Routing (see [SPRING-WG])
Source Routing allows a sender to (partially) define the route of a
packet through the network. This mechanism can be leveraged to steer
the traffic along COIN nodes and thus trigger desired COIN
functionality. The SPRING WG is scoped to define procedures around
Segment Routing [SR], a modern variant of Source Routing for IPv6 and
MPLS.
* (Service/Network) Function Chaining/Composition (see [SFC-WG])
Service Function Chaining (SFC) describes a process to first define
an ordered list of service functions (e.g., firewalls) and then steer
traffic through these functions [SFC-PS]. The SFC WG is tasked with
defining suitable orchestration techniques for SFC. The existing SFC
architecture [SFC-Arch] and the Network Service Header [SFC-NSH]
already provide fundamental mechanisms. Interpreting COIN
functionality as service functions could make SFC applicable to COIN
at Layer 2 and Layer 3, but also at name-based, e.g., HTTP level
[RFC8677]
* Internet services over ICN (see [ICNIP])
Work in the ICN RG [ICNRG] has generally studied the addressing of
information rather than endpoints, opening up the possibility for
providing information from different sources, including in-network
elements, such as for caching purposes. The work in [ICNIP] utilizes
the ICN capabilities to address services directly as a named entity,
including IP endpoints, in order to support concepts like
virtualization of service endpoints and provisioning within edge and
in-network locations. The solution in [ICNIP] proposes the use of a
Layer 2 path-based forwarding with service identifiers used to
address the specific service endpoint.
4. Flow granularity
Core networking hardware pipelines such as backbone switches are
built to process incoming packets on a per-packet basis, keeping
little to no state between them. This is appropriate for the general
task of forwarding packets, but might not be sufficient for COIN as
information that is needed for the computations can be spread across
several packets. In a TCP stream, for example, data is dynamically
distributed across different segments which means that the data
needed for application-level computations might also be split up. In
contrast to that the content of UDP datagrams is defined by the
application itself which is why the datagrams could either be self-
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
contained or information can be cleverly distributed onto different
datagrams. Summarizing, different transport protocols induce
different meanings to the packets that they send out which needs to
be accounted for in COIN elements as they have to know how the
received data is to be interpreted. There are at least three options
for this.
1. Every packet is treated individually. This maps to the
capabilities of existing networking equipment.
2. Every packet is treated as part of a message. In this setting,
the packet alone does not have enough information for the
computations. Instead, it is important to know the content of
the surrounding packets which together form the overall message.
3. Every packet is treated as part of a byte stream. Here, all
previous packets and potentially even all subsequent packets need
to be taken into consideration for the computations as the
current packet could, e.g., be the first of a group of packets, a
packet in the middle, or the final packet.
Along those options above, the question arises how shorter-term
'messages' (or transactions) of the computation should be handled
compared to the often longer-term management of the network resources
needed to transmit the packets across one or more such messages. For
instance, error control may be best applied to the individual
messages between computational endpoints, while congestion control
may be applied across several messages at the level of the relation
between the network elements hosting the computational endpoints. In
this view, the notion of a 'flow' may separate message or transaction
handling from the resource management aspect, where a flow may be
divided into sub-flows (said messages or transactions) with error
control being applied to those sub-flows but resource management
being applied to the overall flow. Such choice of flow granularity
would consequently have a significant impact on how and where
computations can be performed as well as ensuring that end-hosts know
who has altered the data and how.
4.1. Research questions and challenges
1. Which flow granularities are sensible for which scenarios and
upper layer protocols?
2. How do the different flow granularities map to error and
congestion control?
3. How is flow granularity used for creating affinity in, e.g.,
routing choices?
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
4. How may flow granularity information be used in COIN elements,
e.g., to support routing and transport protocol realizations?
4.2. Related concepts and efforts
As mentioned above, flow granularities are defined in transport
protocols through their semantic for the unit of transfer, which can
be a 'datagram' or a 'flow'. Upper layer protocols, such as HTTP,
map their application data into this semantic, resulting, for
instance, in a flow of HTTP requests. Note that the flow identified
by the 5-tuple for the transport connection usually also carries the
reverse direction of communication, e.g., in the form of HTTP
responses. The introduction of 'TCP re-use' in HTTP/1.1 introduced
the capability of sending many HTTP request/response interactions in
a single TCP flow. The notion of flow granularity is being used in
[DYNCAST] to link the relation of one or more application level
interactions to a specific service instance in deployment scenarios
where more than one service instance may serve requests for a given
service; [DYNCAST] refers to the problem of 'instance affinity',
i.e., the need to send one or more such interactions to the same
instance before being able to choose another instance (e.g., based on
computing or network metrics, as suggested in [DYNCAST]). At this
point of the work, the potential realization of such 'instance
affinity' and the relation to transport (as well as application)
protocols has not been discussed yet.
Within the concept of Service Function Chaining (SFC) [SFC-Arch], a
chain of services is formed and expressed through the next service
header (NSH) [SFC-NSH], which provides entries into a next hop table
maintained at each Service Function Forwarder (SFF) [SFC-Arch].
Packet classification takes place at the entry point of the chain,
therefore providing a notion of flow granularity where the chain is
treated as the 'unit of transfer'. Chaining can take place at Layer
2 or Layer 3, but also at a name-based layer (such as HTTP), as
proposed in [RFC8677].
5. Collective Communication
COIN scenarios may exhibit a collective communication semantic, i.e.,
a communication between one and more computational endpoints, as is
for example illustrated by use cases in
[I-D.draft-sarathchandra-coin-appcentres-03]. With this, unicast and
multicast transmissions become almost equal forms of communication,
as also observed in work on information-centric networking (ICN)
[ICNRG].
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
Yet, these many-point relations may be ephemeral down to the
granularity of individual service requests between computational
endpoints which questions the viability of stateful routing and
transport approaches used for long-lived multicast scenarios such as
liveTV transmissions.
This is particularly pertinent for the transport layer where
reliability and flow control among a quickly changing set of
receivers is a challenging problem. The ability to divide receiver
groups with the support of in-network COIN elements may provide
solutions that will cater to the possible dynamics of collective
communication among computational endpoints.
5.1. Research questions and challenges
1. How to handle ephemeral transport relations at the request level
across more than one endpoint?
2. How to separate longer-term resource management from shorter-term
transaction handling for, e.g., error and flow control?
3. What role could COIN elements play in improving on solutions for
questions 1 and 2?
5.2. Related concepts and efforts
As stated above, work in the [ICNRG] has long considered multicast
and unicast delivery as two communication models, realized by the
same communication method that utilizes the interest-data model of
ICN. The work in [ICNIP] utilizes a different approach by relying on
path-based forwarding of packets identified through service-level
identifiers (such as URLs but also IP addresses), where return path
multicast is achieved through binary operations over the path
information of incoming service requests. The utilized transport
network technology is that of 5GLAN or SDN, where the latter uses an
OpenFlow-compatible approach to path-based forwarding with constant
state requirements for the in-network forwarders. A similar approach
is used in [BIER-MC] albeit at the level of a BIER overlay network.
[ICNIP] also discusses, albeit briefly only, the separation of
longer-lived resource management from shorter-lived transaction
handling to increase efficiency of the ephemeral return path
communication at the transport level.
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
6. Authentication
The realisation of COIN legitimizes and actively promotes that data
transmitted from one host to another can be altered on the way inside
the network. This opens the door for foul play as all intermediate
network elements - no matter if they are malicious or misbehaving by
accident, COIN elements, or 'traditional' middleboxes - could simply
start altering parts of the original data and potentially cause harm
to the end-hosts. What is needed are mechanisms with which the
receiving host can verify (a) how and (b) by whom the data has been
altered on the way. In fact, these might very well be two distinct
mechanisms as one (a) only focusses on the changes that are made to
the data while (b) requires a scheme with which COIN elements can be
uniquely identified (could very well relate to Section 3) and
subsequently authenticated.
6.1. Research questions and challenges
1. How are changes to the data within the network communicated to
the end-hosts?
2. How are the COIN elements that are responsible for the changes
communicated to the end-hosts?
3. How are changes made by the COIN elements authenticated?
6.2. Related concepts and efforts
* Proof of Transit [SFC-PoT]
The Proof of Transit concept of the SFC WG allows for proving that
packets have passed a defined path. Using this concept, it could at
least be possible to make sure that a packet has indeed passed the
desired COIN elements. However, it does not provide means to
validate which changes were made by the known nodes.
7. Security
Many early COIN concepts require an unencrypted transmission of data.
At the same time, there is a general tendency towards more and more
security features in communication protocols. QUIC, e.g., encrypts
all payload data and almost all header content already inside the
transport layer. This makes current COIN concepts infeasible in
settings where QUIC connections are used as the COIN elements do not
have access to any packet content. Using COIN thus also depends on
how well security mechanisms like encryption can be integrated into
COIN frameworks.
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
7.1. Research questions and challenges
To be added.
7.2. Related concepts and efforts
To be added.
8. Transport Features
Depending on application needs, different transport protocols provide
different features. These features shape the behavior of the
protocol and have to be taken into account when developing COIN
functionality. In this section, we focus on the impact of
reliability as well as flow and congestion control to create
awareness for the multifaceted interaction between the transport
protocols and COIN elements.
8.1. Reliability
Applications require a reliable transport whenever it is important
that all data is transmitted successfully. TCP[TCP] provides such a
reliable communication as it first sets up a dedicated connection and
then ensures the successful reception of all data. In contrast,
UDP[UDP] is a connectionless protocol without guarantees and COIN
elements working on UDP transmissions must be robust to lost
information. This is not the case for applications on top of TCP,
but the retransmissions and the TCP state, which TCP uses to achieve
the reliability, make packet processing for COIN more complex due to
at least three reasons.
The concept of retransmissions bases on the end-to-end principle as
retransmissions are performed by the sender if it has determined that
the receiver did not receive the corresponding original message.
Both participants can then act knowing that parts of the overall data
are still missing. For simple COIN elements, which are not aware of
the involved TCP states and which do not track sequence numbers, it
is difficult to identify (a) that a packet in the sequence is missing
and (b) that a packet is a retransmission. One question is whether
COIN elements should incorporate an understanding for retransmissions
on the basis of existing transport mechanisms or if a COIN-capable
transport should include dedicated signals for the COIN elements.
Apart from challenges in identifying retransmissions, there is also
the fact that they are sent out of order with the original packet
sequence. Depending on the chosen flow granularity (see Section 4),
COIN elements might have to hold contextual information for a
prolonged time once they identify an impeding retransmission.
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
Moreover, they might have to postpone or cancel computations if data
is missing and instead schedule later computations. The main
question arising from this is: to what extent should COIN elements be
capable of incorporating retransmissions into their computation
schemes and how much additional storage capabilities are required for
this?
When incorporating COIN elements into the retransmission mechanisms,
it is also an interesting question whether it should be possible to
request or perform retransmissions from COIN elements. Considering a
setting with COIN elements that are capable of detecting missing
packets and retransmission requests, it might improve the overall
performance if the COIN element directly requests or performs the
retransmission instead of forwarding the packet/request through the
complete sequence of elements. This is especially interesting in the
context of collective communication where reliability mechanisms
could make use of the multi-source nature of the communication and
leverage the presence of many COIN elements in the network, for
instance by using network coding techniques, which in turn may
benefit from COIN elements participating in the reliability
mechanism. In all cases, the aforementioned storage capabilities are
relevant so that the COIN elements can store enough information. The
general question, i.e., which nodes in the sequence should do the
retransmission, has already been worked on in the context of
multicast transport protocols.
Depending on the extent of realization of the presented
retransmission features, COIN elements might almost have to implement
some of TCP's state to fulfil their tasks. Considering that
different COIN elements have different computational and storage
capacities, it is very likely that not every form of transport
integration into COIN can be supported by every available COIN
platform. The choice of devices included into the communication will
hence certainly affect the types of transport protocols that can be
operated on the COIN networks.
Another aspect to consider is the 'unit' that needs to be reliably
transferred. In stream-based transport protocols, such as TCP,
packets represent the smallest unit of transfer. However, different
choices in the flow granularity and a possible move to larger-than-
a-packet messages or transactions, as suggested in Section 4, might
make other approaches to reliability viable that operate on the basis
of such messages.
8.1.1. Research questions and challenges
1. What is the unit of reliable transfer?
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
2. How to utilize more than one computational endpoint in the
reliability mechanism?
3. Should COIN elements be aware of retransmissions?
4. How can COIN elements identify missing packets or
retransmissions?
5. Should COIN elements be explicitly notified about
retransmissions?
6. To what extent should COIN elements be capable of incorporating
retransmissions into their computation schemes?
7. How much storage capabilities are required for incorporating
retransmissions?
8. How can COIN elements incorporate missing packets into their
computations?
9. How to deal with state changes in COIN elements caused by data
lost later in the communication chain and then retransmitted?
10. Should COIN elements be capable of requesting retransmissions/
answering retransmission requests?
11. Which devices should perform retransmissions?
12. Do COIN elements have to keep transport state?
13. How much transport state do COIN elements have to keep?
8.1.2. Related concepts and efforts
* Transmission Control Protocol [TCP]
TCP provides reliable, ordered, and error-checked delivery of a byte
stream. As such, TCP does not allow for payload changes. This means
that COIN elements could only make changes to lower header
information.
* Stream Control Transmission Protocol [SCTP]
SCTP provides ensures a reliable exchange of messages. In contrast
to TCP, it decouples reliability from in-order delivery and thus
allows for sending messages without ordering. Additionally, it has
also been extended to provide partial reliability, i.e., controlling
the desired reliability on a per-message basis [SCTP-PR].
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
* Constrained Application Protocol [CoAP]
CoAP is a specialized protocol targeting nodes that are constrained,
e.g., in terms of compute power or available bandwidth. It is
message-based and distinguishes between confirmable and non-
confirmable messages, i.e., similar to SCTP, allows for controlling
the reliability on a per-message basis.
* User Datagram Protocol [UDP]
UDP is a message-based protocol that does not provide any guarantees
regarding reliability to the application layer.
8.2. Flow/Congestion Control
TCP incorporates mechanisms to avoid overloading the receiving host
(flow control) and the network (congestion control) and determines
its sending rate as the minimum value of what both mechanisms
determine as feasible for the system. This approach is based on the
notion that computing and forwarding hosts are separated and is
challenged by the inclusion of COIN elements, i.e., computing nodes
in the network.
Flow control bases on explicit end-host information as the
participating end-hosts notify each other about how much data they
are capable of processing and consequently do not transmit more data
as the other host can handle. This only changes if one of the end-
hosts updates its flow control information.
Congestion control, on the other hand, interprets volatile feedback
from the network to guess a sending rate that is possible given the
current network conditions. Most congestion control algorithms
hereby follow a cyclical procedure where the sending end-hosts
constantly increase their sending rate until they detect network
congestion. They then decrease their sending rate once and start to
increase it again.
In this traditional two-fold approach, loss, delay, or any other
congestion signal (depending on the congestion control algorithm)
induced by COIN elements (only in case that they are the bottleneck)
is interpreted as network congestion and thus accounted for in the
congestion control mechanism. This means that the sending end-host
may repeatedly overload the computational capabilities of the COIN
elements when probing for the current network conditions instead of
respecting general device capabilities as is done by flow control.
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
In the context of COIN, the granularity of flows may see a division
into sub-flows or messages to better represent the used computational
semantic as discussed in Section 4. This raises the question whether
flow and congestion control should be applied to longer term flows
(of many sub-flows or messages) or directly to sub-flows.
Eventually, this could possibly lead to a separation of error control
(for sub-flows) and flow control (for longer-term flows). A
subsequent challenge is then how to reconcile the possible volatile
nature of sub-flow relations (between computational endpoints) with
the longer-term relationship between network endpoints that will see
a flow of messages between them. This is particularly pertinent in
collective communication scenarios, where many forward unicast sub-
flows may lead to a single multicast sub-flow response albeit only
for that one response message. Reconciling the various unicast
resource regimes into a single (ephemeral) multicast one poses a
significant challenge.
Consequently, the question arises whether COIN elements should be
able to participate in end-to-end flow control.
8.2.1. Research questions and challenges
1. Should COIN elements be covered by congestion control?
2. Should COIN elements be able to participate in end-to-end flow
control?
3. How could a resource constraint scheme similar to flow control be
realized for COIN elements?
4. How to reconcile message-level flexibility in transport relations
between computational endpoints with longer-term resource
stability between network elements participating in the
computational scenario?
8.2.2. Related concepts and efforts
* Transmission Control Protocol [TCP]
TCP implements flow and congestion control. The traffic is
controlled using TCP's receiver and congestion windows.
* Separation of Data Path and Data Flow
[I-D.draft-asai-tsvwg-transport-review-00] proposes to explicitly
divide transport protocols into two parts: a data path and a data
flow layer. Essentially, the data path layer is responsible for
handling path-related tasks, such as congestion control, and as such
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
spans multiple flows. The data flow layer on top then handles flow-
related tasks such as retransmissions and flow control. As indicated
by the early stage of the document, the concrete structure is still
up for debate. Yet, explicitly dividing congestion and flow control
could give the opportunity to devise more sophisticated approaches to
incorporate COIN elements.
9. Summary of related research and standardization efforts
+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Issue | Efforts |
+=================+==================================================+
| Addressing | Segment and Source Routing: |
| | - [SPRING-WG] |
| | - Segment Routing [SR] |
| | (Service/Network) Function Chaining/Composition: |
| | - [SFC-WG] |
| | - SFC Problem Statement [SFC-PS] |
| | - SFC Architecture [SFC-Arch] |
| | - SFC Network Service Header [SFC-NSH] |
| | - Internet Services over IP [ICNIP] |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Flow | Service Function Chaining [SFC-Arch], [SFC-NSH] |
| Granularity | Use cases and problem statement |
| | for dynamic anycast [DYNCAST] |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Collective | Information-centric networking [ICNRG] |
| Communication | Internet Services over IP [ICNIP] |
| | HTTP multicast over BIER [BIER-MC] |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Authentication | SFC Proof of Transit [SFC-PoT] |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Reliability | Transmission Control Protocol [TCP] |
| | Stream Control Transmission Protocol [SCTP] |
| | Constrained Application Protocol [CoAP] |
| | User Datagram Protocol [UDP] |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Flow/Congestion | [I-D.draft-asai-tsvwg-transport-review-00] |
| Control | |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Related research and standardization efforts.
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
10. Security Considerations
COIN changes the traditional paradigm of a simple network and the
corresponding end-to-end principle as it encourages computations in/
by the network. Approaches designed to protect transmitted data,
such as Transport Layer Security (TLS) which is even embedded into
newer transport protocols like QUIC, rely on the end-to-end principle
and are thus conceptually not compatible with COIN. Additionally,
COIN elements often do not support required cryptographic
functionality. Thus, there exist no out-of-the-box security
solutions for COIN which means new security concepts have to be
developed to allow for a secure use of COIN.
11. IANA Considerations
N/A
12. Conclusion
The advent of COIN comes with many new use cases and promises
improved solutions for various problems. It is, however, not
directly compatible with the end-to-end nature of transport
protocols. To enable a transport-based communication, it is thus
important to answer key questions regarding COIN and transport
protocols.
All in all, there is a wide range of transport features which offer
improved performance in certain settings and for certain application
combinations. However, as presented, it is unlikely that all of the
features/types of transport protocols can be supported on every COIN
element. It might make sense to define different classes of COIN-
ready transport protocols which can then be deployed depending on the
concretely available networking/hardware elements. Alternatively,
each of the features could be treated separately and they could then
be composed based on the demands of an application at-hand.
The general question summarizing this document is:
Which transport features should be supported by COIN, how can they be
identified, and how can they be provided to application designers?
13. Informative References
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
[BIER-MC] Trossen, D., Rahman, A., Wang, C., and T. Eckert,
"Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay for Adaptive
Streaming Services", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-bier-multicast-http-response-05, 10 January
2021, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-
bier-multicast-http-response-05.txt>.
[CoAP] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[DYNCAST] Liu, P., Willis, P., and D. Trossen, "Dynamic-Anycast
(Dyncast) Use Cases and Problem Statement", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft , February 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-dyncast-ps-
usecases/>.
[E2E] Saltzer, J., Reed, D., and D. Clark, "End-to-end arguments
in system design", ACM Transactions on Computer
Systems Vol. 2, pp. 277-288, DOI 10.1145/357401.357402,
November 1984, <https://doi.org/10.1145/357401.357402>.
[I-D.draft-asai-tsvwg-transport-review-00]
Asai, H., "Separation of Data Path and Data Flow Sublayers
in the Transport Layer", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-asai-tsvwg-transport-review-00, 1 November 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asai-tsvwg-
transport-review-00.txt>.
[I-D.draft-kutscher-coinrg-dir-02]
Kutscher, D., Karkkainen, T., and J. Ott, "Directions for
Computing in the Network", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-kutscher-coinrg-dir-02, 31 July 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kutscher-
coinrg-dir-02.txt>.
[I-D.draft-sarathchandra-coin-appcentres-03]
Trossen, D., Sarathchandra, C., and M. Boniface, "In-
Network Computing for App-Centric Micro-Services", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-sarathchandra-coin-
appcentres-03, 23 October 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-sarathchandra-coin-appcentres-
03.txt>.
[ICNIP] Trossen, D., Robitzsch, S., Essex, U., AL-Naday, M., and
J. Riihijarvi, "Internet Services over ICN in 5G LAN
Environments", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
trossen-icnrg-internet-icn-5glan-04, 1 October 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-trossen-icnrg-
internet-icn-5glan-04.txt>.
[ICNRG] "Information-Centric Networking, IRTF Research Group",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/icnrg/about/>.
[RFC8677] Trossen, D., Purkayastha, D., and A. Rahman, "Name-Based
Service Function Forwarder (nSFF) Component within a
Service Function Chaining (SFC) Framework", RFC 8677,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8677, November 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8677>.
[SCTP] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
[SCTP-PR] 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758>.
[SFC-Arch] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[SFC-NSH] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
[SFC-PoT] Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Mizrahi, T., Dara, S., and S.
Youell, "Proof of Transit", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit-08, 1 November
2020, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sfc-
proof-of-transit-08.txt>.
[SFC-PS] Quinn, P., Ed. and T. Nadeau, Ed., "Problem Statement for
Service Function Chaining", RFC 7498,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7498, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7498>.
[SFC-WG] "Service Function Chaining, IETF Working Group",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sfc/about/>.
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft COIN Transport Issues February 2021
[SPRING-WG]
"Source Packet Routing in Networking, IETF Working Group",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spring/about/>.
[SR] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[UDP] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
Authors' Addresses
Ike Kunze
RWTH Aachen University
Ahornstr. 55
D-52074 Aachen
Germany
Email: kunze@comsys.rwth-aachen.de
Klaus Wehrle
RWTH Aachen University
Ahornstr. 55
D-52074 Aachen
Germany
Email: wehrle@comsys.rwth-aachen.de
Dirk Trossen
Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH
Riesstr. 25C
D-80992 Munich
Germany
Email: Dirk.Trossen@Huawei.com
Kunze, et al. Expires 12 August 2021 [Page 19]