Hi Anton,
This is currently an idea to be explored. We have been able to run it,
including some tweaks in the LISPMob implementation.
It includes three different options:
2.1. Basic multiplexing method
2.2. Multiplexing method based on Simplemux
2.3. Header compression and multiplexing method
2.1. The "Basic multiplexing method" may probably have some backward
compatibility issues. The draft says this (although this is a preliminary idea):
One of the free bits in the LISP header should be used to flag the
fact that more than a single packet is included in the encapsulated
one.
In fact, when we tested this (i.e. putting two packets instead of one after the
LISP header) in LISPMob, it worked, but it was just because the implementation
checked if there were more packets.
2.2 and 2.3 would also need some tweaks:
In this case, a port number different from 4341 should be used in the
UDP header preceding the LISP header, in order to indicate that the
protocol inside the LISP header is not IP but Simplemux.
One thing we would want to discuss in the list is if these tweaks are easy to
deploy, and/or if they are the most convenient ones.
Thanks a lot for your comments,
Jose
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Anton Smirnov [mailto:[email protected]]
> Enviado el: jueves, 23 de junio de 2016 17:54
> Para: Jose Saldana <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> CC: 'José Ruiz Mas' <[email protected]>
> Asunto: Re: [lisp] Bandwidth savings with LISP
>
> Hi Jose,
> there is a theoretical aspect of the work (it's curious) and then there
> is a practical
> one. For the latter one - section "Backward compatibility" is conspicuously
> missing
> from the document. On the first glance, it looks like backward compatibility
> of the
> solution was not investigated. Is this correct?
>
> Anton
>
>
> On 06/23/2016 11:11 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As you may know, we recently submitted a draft
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux/) with a
> proposal
> allowing bandwidth and pps reductions.
> >
> > The idea is to send together a number of small packets, which are in the
> > buffer of
> an ITR and have the same ETR as destination, into a single packet. Therefore,
> they
> will share a single LISP header. And this can be combined with ROHC (header
> compression).
> >
> > We have a running implementation, based on LISPMob
> > (https://github.com/Simplemux/lispmob-with-simplemux), which we have
> > used to run some tests
> >
> > This is a summary of the results.
> >
> > - When small packets (100 bytes) are sent, up to 63% of throughput increase
> > can
> be observed (in our example, we pass from 550kbps to 910kbps).
> >
> > - In the case of securing the LISP tunnel with IPSec, the increase can be
> > 935
> (from 470kbps to 870kbps).
> >
> > You can find more detailed information in this presentation:
> > http://es.slideshare.net/josemariasaldana/header-compression-and-multi
> > plexing-in-lisp
> >
> > Your feedback will be highly appreciated.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > The authors
> >
> >> -----Mensaje original-----
> >> De: lisp [mailto:[email protected]] En nombre de Jose Saldana
> >> Enviado el: miércoles, 04 de mayo de 2016 18:41
> >> Para: [email protected]
> >> CC: 'Jose Ruiz Mas' <[email protected]>
> >> Asunto: [lisp] New draft posted:
> >> draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux-00.txt
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> We have just posted this draft
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-lisp-
> >> compress-mux/.
> >>
> >> Header compression and multiplexing in LISP
> >> draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux-00
> >>
> >> Abstract
> >>
> >> When small payloads are transmitted through a packet-switched
> >> network, the resulting overhead may result significant. This is
> >> stressed in the case of LISP, where a number of headers are prepended
> >> to a packet, as new headers have to be added to each packet.
> >>
> >> This document proposes to send together a number of small packets,
> >> which are in the buffer of a ITR, having the same ETR as destination,
> >> into a single packet. Therefore, they will share a single LISP
> >> header, and therefore bandwidth savings can be obtained, and a
> >> reduction in the overall number of packets sent to the network can be
> >> achieved.
> >>
> >> A running implementation can be found here:
> >> https://github.com/Simplemux/lispmob-with-simplemux. I has been built
> >> as a fork of lispmob.
> >>
> >> The idea is very similar to what was published in this paper:
> >> http://diec.unizar.es/~jsaldana/personal/budapest_ICC_2013_in_proc.pd
> >> f
> >>
> >> Your feedback about the draft will be appreciated.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Jose Saldana
> >> Julián Fernández Navajas
> >> José Ruiz Mas
> >>
> >>> -----Mensaje original-----
> >>> De: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> >>> Enviado
> >>> el: miércoles, 04 de mayo de 2016 18:20
> >>> Para: Jose Ruiz Mas <[email protected]>; Jose Saldana
> >>> <[email protected]>; Julian Fernandez Navajas <[email protected]>
> >>> Asunto: New Version Notification for
> >>> draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux-00.txt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A new version of I-D, draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux-00.txt
> >>> has been successfully submitted by Jose Saldana and posted to the
> >>> IETF repository.
> >>>
> >>> Name: draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux
> >>> Revision: 00
> >>> Title: Header compression and multiplexing in LISP
> >>> Document date: 2016-05-04
> >>> Group: Individual Submission
> >>> Pages: 8
> >>> URL:
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux
> >>> -
> >>> 00.txt
> >>> Status:
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux/
> >>> Htmlized:
> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saldana-lisp-compress-mux-00
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Abstract:
> >>> When small payloads are transmitted through a packet-switched
> >>> network, the resulting overhead may result significant. This is
> >>> stressed in the case of LISP, where a number of headers are prepended
> >>> to a packet, as new headers have to be added to each packet.
> >>>
> >>> This document proposes to send together a number of small packets,
> >>> which are in the buffer of a ITR, having the same ETR as destination,
> >>> into a single packet. Therefore, they will share a single LISP
> >>> header, and therefore bandwidth savings can be obtained, and a
> >>> reduction in the overall number of packets sent to the network can be
> >>> achieved.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> >>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> >>> tools.ietf.org.
> >>>
> >>> The IETF Secretariat
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> lisp mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lisp mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> >
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
