Stephen McQuistin
Colin Perkins
ABSTRACT
Real-time applications require a set of transport services not currently provided by widely-deployed transport protocols. Ossification prevents the deployment of novel protocols, restricting solutions to protocols using either TCP or UDP as a substrate. We describe the transport services required by real-time applications. We show that, in the short-term (i.e., while UDP is blocked at current levels), TCP offers a feasible substrate for providing these services. Over the longer term, protocols using UDP may reduce the number of networks blocking UDP, enabling a shift towards its use as a demultiplexing layer for novel transport protocols.
- L. S. Brakmo, S. W. O'Malley, and L. L. Peterson. TCP Vegas: New techniques for congestion detection and avoidance. In Proceedings of the SIGCOMM Conference, pages 24–35, London, UK, August 1994. ACM. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- C. Byrne and J. Kleberg. Advisory Guidelines for UDP Deployment. Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2015. Work in Progress.Google Scholar
- Y. Cheng, J. Chu, S. Radhakrishnan, and A. Jain. TCP Fast Open. Internet Engineering Task Force, December 2014. RFC 7413.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Cheshire and M. Baker. Consistent Overhead Byte Stuffing. In Proceedings of the SIGCOMM Conference, Cannes, France, September 1997. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. D. Clark and D. L. Tennenhouse. Architectural Considerations for a New Generation of Protocols. In Proceedings of the SIGCOMM Conference, Philadelphia, PA, September 1990. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Ferguson and D. Senie. Network Ingress Filtering. Internet Engineering Task Force, May 2000. RFC 2827.Google Scholar
- R. Hamilton, J. Iyengar, I. Swett, and A. Wilk. QUIC: A UDP-Based Secure and Reliable Transport for HTTP/2. Internet Engineering Task Force, January 2016. Work in Progress.Google Scholar
- M. Handley, V. Jacobson, and C. S. Perkins. SDP: Session Description Protocol. Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2006. RFC 4566.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Honda, Y. Nishida, C. Raiciu, A. Greenhalgh, M. Handley, and H. Tokuda. Is it still possible to extend TCP? In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference, Berlin, Germany, November 2011. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Jennings, T. Hardie, and M. Westerlund. Real time communications for the web. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(4), April 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Jesup, S. Loreto, and M. Tuezen. WebRTC Data Channels. Internet Engineering Task Force, January 2015. Work in Progress.Google Scholar
- C. Jin, D. X. Wei, and S. H. Low. FAST TCP: Motivation, architecture, algorithms, performance. In Proceedings of the Infocom Conference, Hong Kong, China, March 2004. IEEE.Google Scholar
- E. Kohler, M. Handley, and S. Floyd. Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP). RFC 4340, March 2006.Google Scholar
- D. Le Gall. MPEG: A video compression standard for multimedia applications. Communications of the ACM, 34(4):46–58, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. McQuistin, C. Perkins, and M. Fayed. TCP Hollywood: An Unordered, Time-Lined, TCP for Networked Multimedia Applications. In Proceedings of the Networking Conference, Vienna, Austria, May 2016. IFIP.Google Scholar
- S. McQuistin and C. S. Perkins. Reinterpreting the Transport Protocol Stack to Embrace Ossification. In Proceedings of the IAB Workshop on Stack Evolution in a Middlebox Internet, Zürich, Switzerland, January 2015.Google Scholar
- B. Mukherjee and T. Brecht. Time-lined TCP for the TCP-friendly delivery of streaming media. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Network Protocols, Osaka, Japan, November 2000. IEEE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. F. Nowlan, N. Tiwari, J. Iyengar, S. O. Amin, and B. Ford. Fitting Square Pegs Through Round Pipes: Unordered Delivery Wire-Compatible with TCP and TLS. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, San Jose, CA, April 2012. USENIX. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Phelan, G. Fairhurst, and C. S. Perkins. DCCP-UDP: A datagram congestion control protocol UDP encapsulation for NAT traversal. Internet Engineering Task Force, November 2012. RFC 6773.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Rescorla and N. Modadugu. Datagram Transport Layer Security version 1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force, January 2012. RFC 6347.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne. An offer/answer model with the Session Description Protocol (SDP). Internet Engineering Task Force, June 2002. RFC 3264. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Roskind. Quick UDP Internet Connections: Design Document and Specification Rationale, December 2013.Google Scholar
- H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, and V. Jacobson. RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications. RFC 3550, July 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Stewart. Stream control transmission protocol. Internet Engineering Task Force, September 2007. RFC 4960.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Wiegand, G. J. Sullivan, G. Bjontegaard, and A. Luthra. Overview of the H.264/AVC video coding standard. IEEE Transactions on circuits and systems for video technology, 13(7):560–576, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Zanaty, V. Singh, S. Nandakumar, and Z. Sarker. Congestion control and codec interactions in RTP applications. Internet Engineering Task Force, March 2016. Work in Progress.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Implementing Real-Time Transport Services over an Ossified Network
Recommendations
TCP goes to hollywood
NOSSDAV '16: Proceedings of the 26th International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and VideoReal-time multimedia applications use either TCP or UDP at the transport layer, yet neither of these protocols offer all of the features required. Deploying a new protocol that does offer these features is made difficult by ossification: firewalls, and ...
Retransmission policies for multihomed transport protocols
We evaluate three retransmission policies for transport protocols that support multihoming (e.g. SCTP). The policies dictate whether retransmissions are sent to the same peer IP address as the original transmission, or sent to an alternate peer IP ...
Wireless Transport Layer Congestion Control Evaluation
The performance of transport layer protocols can be affected differently due to wireless congestion, as opposed to network congestion. Using an active network evaluation strategy in a real world test-bed experiment, the Transport Control Protocol TCP, ...
Comments