Protocol for Tunneling, Compressing and Multiplexing Traffic Flows.

1. Jose Saldana (jsaldana@unizar.es) TCMTF 2014
TCM-TF
Tunneling, Compressing and Multiplexing Traffic Flows
I. Problem statement
II. Scenarios
III. TCM-TF details
IV. TCM-TF savings
V. Related links

2. Problem statement
New emerging real-time services have increased their
popularity (e.g., online games, VoIP, etc.)
 Many of them do not use RTP, but bare UDP
 They generate tiny packets (20-40 bytes payload)
 Users are very sensitive to delay

3. Problem statement
Inefficiency of these real-time flows
 High frequency implies:
 Small payloads
 IPv4/UDP/RTP headers: 40 bytes
 IPv6/UDP/RTP headers: 60 bytes
One IPv4/TCP packet 1500 bytes
η=1460/1500=97%
One IPv4/UDP/RTP VoIP packet with two samples of 10 bytes
η=20/60=33%
One IPv6/TCP packet 1500 bytes
η=1440/1500=96%
One IPv6/UDP/RTP packet of VoIP with two samples of 10 bytes
η=20/80=25%

4. Problem statement
So…why not compressing and multiplexing packets in
order to
 save bandwdith
 reduce the amount of packets per second
Five IPv4/UDP/RTP VoIP packets with two samples of 10 bytes
η=100/300=33%
One IPv4 TCMTF Packet multiplexing five two sample packets
η=100/161=62%
saving
Four IPv6/UDP/RTP VoIP packets with two samples of 10 bytes
η=80/240=33%
One IPv6 TCMTF Packet multiplexing four two sample packets
η=80/161=49%
saving

5. The basic idea
TCM
ingress
Native
TCM
egress
TCM
Common network segment

6. Jose Saldana (jsaldana@unizar.es) TCMTF 2014
TCM-TF
Tunneling, Compressing and Multiplexing Traffic Flows
I. Problem statement
II. Scenarios
III. TCM-TF details
IV. TCM-TF savings
V. Related links

7. TCM-TF scenarios
Multi-domain scenario
Native
TCM optimized
aggregation
network
DSLAM
ENodeB
ISP
network
Network of
the service
provider
Application
Server 1
Internet
BRAS
Serving
Gateway
Internet Router
(ISP)
Application
Server 2
Internet Router
(Service provider)
TCM-demux
aggregation network
- Network devices optimize flows with the same destination.
- A server in the network of the service provider demultiplexes them.
- Other option: The Internet Router does the multiplexion

8. TCM-TF scenarios
Single-domain scenario
Aggregation
network
DSLAM
Operator
network
Internet
BRAS
Internet Router
Serving
Gateway
EnodeB
Aggregation
network
Network devices multiplex all the realtime flows going to the Internet Router

9. TCM-TF scenarios
Private solutions
Central server
TCM
VoIP
IP network
TCM
Remote desktop
VoIP

10. TCM-TF scenarios
IoT scenario
Satellite link
Satellite
Terminal
Satellite
Terminal
Satellite
Terminal
Gateway
Internet
IP sensors
Data Center 1
Data Center 2
Data Center 3

11. Jose Saldana (jsaldana@unizar.es) TCMTF 2014
TCM-TF
Tunneling, Compressing and Multiplexing Traffic Flows
I. Problem statement
II. Scenarios
III. TCM-TF details
IV. TCM-TF savings
V. Related links

12. TCM-TF details
Three layers
1. Header compression
2. Multiplexing
3. Tunneling
payload
payload
RTP
UDP
UDP
IP
IP
Compression layer
No compr. / ROHC / IPHC / ECRTP
Multiplexing layer
PPPMux / Other
Tunneling layer
GRE / L2TP
MPLS
Network Protocol
IP

13. TCM-TF details
Different header compression algorithms.
The most adequate one can be selected
according to kind of traffic, scenario (loss,
delay), processing capacity, etc.
Different traffics: UDP, RTP
payload
RTP
UDP
UDP
IP
Different mux algorithms.
Currently: PPPMux, but new
developed ones can be considered
payload
IP
No compr. / ROHC / IPHC / ECRTP
Multiplexing layer
Different tunneling algorithms.
Currently: L2TPv3
Others: GRE, MPLS, others
Compression layer
PPPMux / Other
Tunneling layer
GRE / L2TP
MPLS
Network Protocol
IP

14. TCM-TF details
Currently: TCRTP (RFC4170) only considers one option for VoIP (ECRTP,
PPPMux, L2TP), so we would update it with more options on each layer
payload
payload
ECRTP
...
ECRTP
RTP
UDP
IP
PPP Mux
PPP
L2TP
IP
VoIP
One IPv4/UDP/RTP VoIP packet with two samples of 10 bytes
η=20/60=33%
40 to 6-8 bytes compression
Five IPv4/UDP/RTP VoIP packets with two samples of 10 bytes
η=20/60=33%
One IPv4 TCMTF Packet multiplexing five two sample packets
η=100/161=62%
saving

15. Jose Saldana (jsaldana@unizar.es) TCMTF 2014
TCM-TF
Tunneling, Compressing and Multiplexing Traffic Flows
I. Problem statement
II. Scenarios
III. TCM-TF details
IV. TCM-TF savings
V. Related links

16. TCM-TF savings
VoIP
TCMTF Bandwidth Saving, RTP/UDP/IPv4 voice G.729a, 2 samples per packet
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10
Number of calls
70%
9
8
7
6
5
85%
prob. of reduced header
4
3
2
100%
1
"Evaluating the Influence of Multiplexing Schemes and Buffer Implementation on Perceived VoIP Conversation Quality,"
Computer Networks (Elsevier). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.02.004

17. TCM-TF savings
UDP First Person Shooter (Counter Strike)
TCMTF Bandwidth Saving, UDP/IPv4 Counter Strike
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
20
50 ms
19
18
17
16
40 ms
15
14
13
12
number of players
30 ms
11
10
9
20 ms
8
7
6
5
10 ms
4
3
multiplexing
period
2
First Person Shooters: Can a Smarter Network Save Bandwidth without Annoying the Players?," IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol. 49, no.11, pp. 190-198, November 2011

18. TCM-TF savings
Bandwidth saving IPv4
IPv4 10 ms 5 players
IPv4 10 ms 20 players
60%
IPv4 reached
IPv4 theoretical
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Quake 2
Unreal
Tournament
Counter Strike
1
Quake 3
Enemy
Territory
Counter Strike
2
Halo 2
Quake 4

19. TCM-TF savings
Bandwidth saving IPv6
IPv6 10 ms 5 players
IPv6 10 ms 20 players
60%
IPv6 reached
IPv6 theoretical
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Quake 2
Unreal
Tournament
Counter Strike
1
Quake 3
Enemy
Territory
Counter Strike
2
Halo 2
Quake 4

20. Jose Saldana (jsaldana@unizar.es) TCMTF 2014
TCM-TF
Tunneling, Compressing and Multiplexing Traffic Flows
I. Problem statement
II. Scenarios
III. TCM-TF details
IV. TCM-TF savings
V. Related links

21. TCM-TF related links
 mailing list: tcmtf@ietf.org. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
 Description draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwgtcmtf/
 Recommendations draft (maximum added delays and classification
methods): http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf/
 Related publications:
 Emerging Real-time Services: Optimizing Traffic by Smart Cooperation in the Network," IEEE
Communications Magazine, Vol. 51, n. 11, pp 127-136, Nov. 2013.
 First Person Shooters: Can a Smarter Network Save Bandwidth without Annoying the Players?," IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no.11, pp. 190-198, November 2011
 Widening the Scope of a Standard: Real Time Flows Tunneling, Compressing and Multiplexing," IEEE
ICC 2012, Workshop on Telecommunications: from Research to Standards, June 10-11, 2012, Ottawa,
Canada.
 Evaluating the Influence of Multiplexing Schemes and Buffer Implementation on Perceived VoIP
Conversation Quality," Computer Networks (Elsevier), Volume 56, Issue 7, Pages 1893-1919, May 2012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.02.004