One document matched: draft-ietf-pilc-pep-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-pilc-pep-00.txt
Status of This Memo
The document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
of the provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
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 Intenet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Distribution of this draft is unlimited. Comments on this draft
should be sent to the authors or to the PILC mailing list at
pilc@grc.nasa.gov. This draft expires on June 3, 2000.
Abstract
This document provides a high level overview of Performance Enhancing
Proxies. Motivations for their development and use are described as
well as some of the consequences of using them.
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Types of Performance Enhancing Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1 Transport Layer PEPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2 Application Layer PEPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Asymmetric vs. Symmetric PEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Split Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. PEP Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 TCP ACK Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1 TCP ACK Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.2 Local TCP Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3 Local TCP Retransmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4 Handling Periods of Link Disconnection with TCP . . . . . . . . 11
3.5 Priority-based Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6 Other Link Specific Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6.1 Protocol Booster Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6.2 TCP ACK Filtering and Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6.3 Other Possible Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 Implications of Using PEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1 The End-to-end Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.1 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.2 Fate Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.3 End-to-end Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1.4 End-to-end Failure Diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2 Asymmetric Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3 Mobile Hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4 Other Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.1 Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.2 Multi-Homing Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.3 QoS Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.4 Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5 PEP Environment Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1 VSAT Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.1 VSAT Network Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.2 VSAT Network PEP Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.3 VSAT Network PEP Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2 W-WAN Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.1 W-WAN Network Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.2 W-WAN PEP Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3 W-LAN Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3.1 W-LAN Network Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3.2 W-LAN PEP Implementations: Snoop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7 Appendix - PEP Terminology Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
1 Introduction
The Transmission Control Protocol [RFC0793] (TCP) is used as the
transport layer protocol by many Internet and intranet applications.
However, in certain environments, TCP and other higher layer protocol
performance is limited by the link characteristics of the
environment. [Karn99] discusses various link layer design
considerations that should be taken into account when designing a
link layer service that is intended to support the Internet
protocols. Such design choices may have a significant influence on
the performance and efficiency of the Internet. However, not all link
characteristics, for example, high latency, can be compensated for by
such choices in the link layer design. And, the cost of compensating
for some link characteristics may be prohibitive for some
technologies. A Performance Enhancing Proxy (PEP) is used to improve
the performance of the Internet protocols on network paths where
native performance suffers due to characteristic of a link or
subnetwork on the path.
This document does not intend to advocate use of PEPs in general. On
the contrary, we believe that the end-to-end principle in designing
Internet protocols should be retained as the prevailing approach and
PEPs should be used only in specific environments and circumstances
where end-to-end mechanisms providing similar performance
enhancements are not available. In any environment where one might
consider employing PEP for improved performance, an end user should
be aware of the PEP and the choice of employing PEP functionality
should be under the control of the end user, especially if employing
the PEP would interfere with end-to-end usage of IP layer security
mechanisms or otherwise have undesirable implications in some
circumstances. This would allow the user to choose end-to-end IP at
all times but, of course, without performance enhancements that
employing the PEP may yield.
The remainder of this document is organized as follows. Section 2
provides an overview of different kinds of PEP implementations.
Section 3 discusses some of the mechanisms which PEPs may employ in
order to improve performance. Section 4 discusses some of the
implications with respect to using PEPs, especially in the context of
the global Internet. Finally, Section 5 discusses some example
environments where PEPs are used: satellite very small aperture
terminal (VSAT) environments, mobile wireless WAN (W-WAN)
environments and wireless LAN (W-LAN) environments. A summary of
PEP terminology is included in an appendix (Section 7).
NOTE: This is a working draft and it may fail to cover many important
aspects related to PEPs. In particular, this version does not
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
necessarily list all the possible implications of using PEPs
nor does the included text on each of the implications cover
all the aspects related to the particular implication. Any
suggestions to improve the text are solicited.
2 Types of Performance Enhancing Proxies
There are many types of Performance Enhancing Proxies. Different
types of PEPs are used in different environments to overcome
different link characteristics which affect protocol performance.
Note that enhancing performance is not necessarily limited in scope
to throughput. Other performance related aspects, like usability of a
link, may also be addressed. For example, [M-TCP] addresses the issue
of keeping TCP connections alive during periods of disconnection in
wireless networks.
The following sections describe some of the key characteristics which
differentiate different types of PEPs.
2.1 Layering
A PEP implementation may function at the transport layer or at the
application layer. In principle, a PEP implementation may function at
other layers (e.g., at the network layer) as well. Such PEPs,
however, are out of scope of this (version of the) document.
2.1.1 Transport Layer PEPs
Transport layer PEPs operate at the transport level. They may be
aware of the type of application being carried by the transport layer
but, at most, only use this information to influence their behaviour
with respect to the transport protocol; they do not modify the
application protocol in any way, but let the application protocol
operate end-to-end. Most transport layer PEP implementations interact
with TCP. Such an implementation is called a TCP Performance
Enhancing Proxy (TCP PEP). For example, in an environment where ACKs
may bunch together, a TCP proxy may be used to simply modify the ACK
spacing in order to improve performance. On the other hand, in an
environment with a large bandwidth*delay product, a TCP proxy may be
used to alter the behaviour of the TCP connection by generating local
acknowledgements to TCP data segments in order to improve the
connection's throughput.
(The term TCP spoofing is sometimes used synonymously for TCP PEP
functionality. However, the term TCP spoofing more accurately
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
applies to only a subset of TCP PEP implementations.)
2.1.2 Application Layer PEPs
Application layer PEPs operate above the transport layer. Today,
different kinds of application layer proxies are widely used in the
Internet. Such proxies include Web caches and relay Mail Transfer
Agents (MTA) and they typically try to improve performance or service
availability and reliability in general and in a way which is
applicable in any environment but they do not necessarily include any
optimizations that are specific to certain link characteristics.
Application layer PEPs, on the other hand, can be implemented to
improve application protocol as well as transport layer performance
with respect to a particular application being used with a particular
type of link. An application layer PEP may have the same
functionality as the corresponding regular proxy for the same
application (e.g., relay MTA or Web caching proxy) but extended with
link-specific optimizations of the application protocol operation.
Some application protocols employ extraneous round trips, overly
verbose headers and/or inefficient header encoding which may have a
significant impact on performance, in particular, with long delay and
slow links. This unnecessary overhead can be reduced, in general or
for a particular type of link, by using an application layer PEP in
an intermediate node. Some examples of application layer PEPs which
have been shown to improve performance on slow wireless WAN links are
described in [LHKR96] and [CTC+97].
2.2 Distribution
A PEP implementation may be integrated, i.e., it comprises a single
PEP component implemented within a single node, or distributed, i.e.,
it comprises two or more PEP components, typically implemented in
multiple nodes. An integrated PEP implementation represents a single
point at which performance enhancement is applied. For example, a
single PEP component might be implemented to provide impedance
matching at the point where wired and wireless links meet.
A distributed PEP implementation is generally used to surround a
particular link for which performance enhancement is desired. For
example, a PEP implementation for a satellite connection may be
distributed between two PEPs located at each end of the satellite
link.
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
2.3 Asymmetric vs. Symmetric PEP
A PEP implementation may be symmetric or asymmetric. Symmetric
PEPs use identical behaviour in both directions. Asymmetric PEPs
operate differently in each direction. The direction can be defined
in terms of link (e.g., uplink or downlink) or in terms of protocol
traffic (e.g., the direction of TCP data flow, often called TCP data
channel, or the direction of TCP ACK flow, often called ACK channel).
(A distributed PEP may have yet another type of asymmetry. A
symmetric implementation uses two or more PEPs with essentially
identical behaviour and implemantation. An asymmetric implementation
uses two or more PEPs which behave differently and have different
implementation. Such an asymmetric distributed PEP implementation
generally used with an asymmetric link and uses two PEPs with
is different implementation at each side of the link.)
2.4 Split Connections
A split connection TCP implementation terminates the TCP connection
received from an end system and establishes a corresponding TCP
connection to the other end system. In a distributed PEP
implementation, this is typically done to allow the use of a third
connection between two PEPs optimized for the link. This might be
a TCP connection optimized for the link or it might be another
protocol, for example, a proprietary protocol running on top of UDP.
Also, the distributed implementation might use a separate connection
between the proxies for each TCP connection or it might multiplex the
data from multiple TCP connections across a single connection between
the PEPs.
In an integrated PEP split connection TCP implementation, PEP again
terminates the connection from one end system and originates a
separate connection to the other end system. [I-TCP] documents an
example of a single PEP split connection implementation.
Many integrated PEPs use a split connection implementation in order
to address a mismatch in TCP capabilities between two end systems.
For example, the TCP window scaling option [RFC1323] can be used to
extend the maximum amount of TCP data which can be "in flight" (i.e.,
sent and awaiting acknowledgement). This is useful for filling a link
which has a high bandwidth*delay product. If one end system is
capable of using scaled TCP windows but the other is not, the end
system which is not capable can set up its connection with PEP on its
side of the high bandwidth*delay link. Split connection PEP then sets
up a TCP connection with window scaling over the link to the other
end system.
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
Split connection TCP implementations can effectively leverage TCP
performance enhancements optimal for a particular link but which
cannot necessarily be employed safely over the global Internet.
Note that using split connection PEPs does not necessarily exclude
simultaneous use of IP for end-to-end connectivity. If a split
connection is managed per application or per connection and is under
the control of the end user, the user can decide whether a particular
TCP connection or application makes use of split connection PEP or
whether it operates end-to-end. When PEP is employed on a last hop
link, the end user control is relatively easy to implement.
In effect, application layer proxies for TCP-based applications are
split connection TCP implementations with end systems using PEPs as a
service related to a particular application. Therefore, all transport
(TCP) layer enhancements that are available with split connection TCP
implementations can also be employed with application layer PEPs in
conjunction with application layer enhancements.
2.5 Transparency
Another key characteristic of a PEP is its degree of transparency.
PEPs may operate totally transparently to the end systems, transport
endpoints, and/or applications involved (in a connection), requiring
no modifications to the end systems, transport endpoints, or
applications.
On the other hand, a PEP implementation may require modifications to
both ends in order to be used. In between, a PEP implementation may
require modifications to only one of the ends involved. Either of
this kind of PEP implementations is non-transparent, at least to
the layer requiring modification.
It is sometimes useful to think of the degree of transparency of a
PEP implementation at four levels, transparency with respect to the
end systems (network-layer transparent PEP), transparency with
respect to the transport endpoints (transport-layer transparent PEP),
transparency with respect to the applications (application-layer
transparent PEP) and transparency with respect to the users. For
example, a user who subscribes to a satellite Internet access service
may be aware that the satellite terminal is providing a performance
enhancing service even though the TCP/IP stack and the applications
in the user's PC are not aware of PEP which implements it.
Note that the issue of transparency is not the same as the issue
of maintaining the end-to-end semantics. For example, a PEP
implementation which simply uses a TCP ACK spacing mechanism
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
maintains the end-to-end semantics of the TCP connection while a
split connection PEP implementation may not. Yet, both can be
implemented transparently to the transport endpoints at both ends.
The implications of not maintaining the end-to-end semantics, in
particular the end-to-end semantics of TCP connections, are
discussed in Section 4.
3. PEP Mechanisms
An obvious key characteristic of a PEP implementation is the
mechanism(s) it uses to improve performance. Some examples of PEP
mechanisms are described in the following subsections. A PEP
implementation might implement more than one of these mechanisms.
3.1 TCP ACK Handling
Many TCP PEP implementations are based on TCP ACK manipulation. The
handling of TCP acknowledgements can differ significantly between
different TCP PEP implementations. The following subsections describe
various TCP ACK handling mechanisms. Many implementations combine
some of these mechanisms and possibly employ some additional
mechanisms as well.
3.1.1 TCP ACK Spacing
Some TCP PEP implementations are concerned only with manipulating TCP
acknowledgements. ACK spacing is used to smooth out the flow of TCP
acknowledgements traversing a link in order to improve performance by
eliminating bursts of TCP data segments [Part98].
3.1.2 Local TCP Acknowledgements
In some PEP implementations, TCP data segments received by the PEP
are locally acknowledged by the PEP. This is very useful over network
paths with a large bandwidth*delay product as it speeds up TCP slow
start and allows the sending TCP to quickly open up its congestion
window. Local acknowledgements are automatically employed with split
connection TCP implementations.
When local acknowledgements are used, the burden falls upon the TCP
PEP to recover any data which is dropped after the PEP acknowledges
it.
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
3.1.3 Local TCP Retransmissions
A TCP PEP may locally retransmit data segments lost on the path
between the TCP PEP and the receiving end system, thus aiming at
faster recovery from lost data. In order to achieve this the TCP PEP
may use acknowledgements arriving from the end system that receives
the TCP data segments, along with appropriate timeouts, to determine
when to locally retransmit lost data. TCP PEPs sending local
acknowledgements to the sending end system, are required to employ
local retransmissions towards the receiving end system.
Some PEP implementations perform local retransmissions even though
they do not use local acknowledgements to alter TCP connection
performance. Basic Snoop [SNOOP] is a well know example of such a PEP
implementation. Snoop caches TCP data segments it receives and
forwards and then monitors the acknowledgements coming from the
receiving TCP end system for duplicate acknowledgements (DUPACKs).
When DUPACKs are received, Snoop locally retransmits the lost TCP
data segments from its cache, suppressing the DUPACKs flowing to the
sending TCP end system until acknowledgements for new data are
received (See Section 5.2 for details.)
3.2 Tunneling
<Text in this subsection is subject to change>
A Performance Enhancing Proxy may encapsulate messages to carry the
messages across a particular link. PEP at the other end of the
encapsulation tunnel removes the tunnel wrappers before final
delivery to the receiving end system. A tunnel might be used by a
distributed split connection TCP implementation as the means for
connecting split connection PEPs. A tunnel might also be used to
support forcing TCP connections which use asymmetric routing to go
through the end points of a distributed PEP implementation.
3.3 Compression
Many PEP implementations include support for one or more forms of
compression. In some PEP implementations, compression may even be
the only mechanism used for performance improvement. Compression
reduces the number of bytes which need to be sent across a link. This
is useful in general and can be very important for bandwidth limited
links. Some of the benefits of using compression include:
- Improved link efficiency;
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
- Higher effective link utilization;
- Reduced latency;
- Improved interactive response time;
- Decreased overhead;
- Reduced packet loss rate over lossy links.
Where appropriate, link layer compression is used. TCP and IP header
compression are also frequently used with PEP implementations.
[RFC1144] describes a widely deployed method for compressing TCP
headers. Other header compression algorithms are described in
[RFC2507], [RFC2508] and [RFC2509].
Payload compression is also desirable and is increasing in importance
with today's increased emphasis on Internet security. Network (IP)
layer (and above) security mechanisms convert IP payloads into random
bit streams which defeat applicable link layer compression mechanisms
by removing or hiding redundant "information." Therefore, compression
of the payload needs to be applied before security mechanisms are
applied. [RFC2393] defines a framework where common compression
algorithms can be applied to arbitrary IP segment payloads. However,
[RFC2393] compression is not always applicable. Many types of IP
payloads (e.g. images, audio, video and "zipped" files being
transferred) are already compressed. And, when security mechanisms
such as TLS [RFC2246] are applied above the network (IP) layer, the
data is already compressed; resulting additional transport or network
layer compression will compact only those headers, which are small,
and possibly already covered by separate compression algorithms of
their own.
With application layer PEPs one can employ application-specific
compression. In particular, with slow links any compression that
effectively reduces transfer volume is tremendously useful. Typically
an application-specific (or content-specific) compression mechanism
is much more efficient than any generic compression mechanism. For
example, a distributed Web PEP implementation may implement more
efficient binary encoding of HTTP headers, or PEP can employ lossy
compression that reduces the image quality of inline-images on Web
pages according to end user instructions, thus reducing the number of
bytes transferred over the slow link and consequently the response
time perceived by the user [LHKR96].
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
3.4 Handling Periods of Link Disconnection with TCP
Periods of link disconnection or link outage are very common with
some wireless links. During these periods, a TCP sender does not
receive the expected acknowledgements. Upon expiration of the
retransmit timer, this causes TCP to close its congestion window with
all of the related drawbacks. A TCP PEP may monitor the traffic
coming from the TCP sender towards the TCP receiver behind the
disconnected link. The TCP PEP retains the last ACK, so that it can
shut down the TCP sender's window by sending the last ACK with a
window set to zero. Thus, the TCP sender will go into persist mode.
To make this work in both directions with integrated TCP PEP
implementation, the TCP receiver behind the disconnected link must
be aware of the current state of the connection and, in the event
of a disconnection, it must be capable of freezing all timers.
[M-TCP] implements such operation. Another possibility is that the
disconnected link is surrounded by a distributed PEP pair.
In split connection TCP implementations, a period of link
disconnection can easily be hidden from the end host on the other
side of PEP thus precluding the TCP connection from breaking even
if the period of link disconnection lasts a very long time.
Consequently, the proxy and its counterpart behind the disconnected
link can employ a modified TCP version which retains the state and
all unacknowledged data segments across the period of disconnection
and then performs local recovery as the link is reconnected. The
period of link disconnection may or may not be hidden from the
application and user, depending upon what application the user is
using the TCP connection for.
3.5 Priority-based Multiplexing
Implementing priority-based multiplexing of data with a slow
(expensive) link may improve the usability of the link and
performance for selected applications or connectios.
A user behind a slow link would experience the link more feasible to
use in case of simultaneous data transfers, if urgent data transfers
(e.g., interactive connections) could have shorter response time
(better performance) than less urgent transfers. This kind of
operation can be controlled by assigning different priorities for
different connections (or applications).
In flight TCP segments of an end-to-end TCP connection (with low
priority) can not be delayed for a long time. Otherwise, the TCP
timer at the sending end would expire, resulting in suboptimal
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
performance. A split connection PEP implementation allows a PEP in an
intermediate node to reschedule freely the order in which it forwards
data of different connections to the destination host behind the slow
link. This can further be assisted, if the protocol stacks on both
sides of the slow link implement priority based scheduling of
connections.
With such a PEP implementation together with user-controlled
priorities the user can assign higher priority for some interactive
connection(s) and in this way have much shorter response time for
selected connections, even if there are simultaneous low priority
bulk data transfers (which would in regular end-to-end operation eat
almost all available bandwidth of the slow link). These low priority
bulk data transfers would then proceed nicely during the idle periods
of interactive connections, allowing the user to keep the slow and
expensive link (e.g., wireless WAN) fully utilized.
3.6 Other Link Specific Enhancements
< Editor's comment: the following subsections provide placeholders
for describing other link specific enhancements. Any help is
appreciated and contributions on these subjects are solicited. >
3.6.1 Protocol Booster Mechanisms
A number of possible protocol booster mechanisms are described
in [FMSBMR98].
3.6.2 TCP ACK Filtering and Reconstruction
< Editor's note: the upcoming text for this subsection is to be moved
under the section 3.1. >
On paths with highly asymmetric bandwidth the TCP ACKs flowing on the
low-speed direction may get congested if the asymmetry ratio is high
enough. This issue is discussed in [AGG+99] and in a companion PILC
document on Implications of Network Asymmetry [BaPa99].
3.6.3 Other Possible Mechanisms
< Editor's note: contributions describing other mechanisms are
solicited. >
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
4 Implications of Using PEP
The following sections describe some of the implications of using
PEP.
4.1 The End-to-end Argument
As indicated in [RFC1958], the end-to-end argument [SRC84] is one of
the architectural principles of the Internet. The basic argument is
that, as a first principle, certain required end-to-end functions can
only be correctly performed by the end systems themselves. Most of
the negative implications associated with using PEPs are related to
the possibility of breaking the end-to-end semantics of connections.
This is one of the main reasons why PEPs are not recommended for
general use.
As indicated in Section 2.5, not all PEP implementations break the
end-to-end semantics of connections. Correctly designed PEPs do not
attempt to replace any application level end-to-end function, but
only attempt to add performance optimizations to a subpath of the
end-to-end path between the application endpoints. Doing this can
be consistent with the end-to-end argument.
4.1.1 Security
The most detrimental negative implication of breaking the end-to-end
semantics of a connection is that it disables end-to-end use of
network (IP) layer security (IPsec). If, on the other hand, IPsec is
employed end-to-end, it precludes PEPs from working because they need
to examine transport or application headers but encryption of IP
packets via IPsec's ESP header (in either transport or tunnel mode)
renders the TCP header and payload unintelligible to intermediate
PEPs. However, if an end user can select end-to-end IP for the IPsec
traffic and use a PEP for other traffic, the problem is considerably
alleviated although the encrypted traffic is not subject to possible
performance enhancements while the other traffic is.
If a PEP implementation is non-transparent to the users and the
users trust the PEP in the middle, IPsec can be used separately
between each end system and PEP. However, in most cases this is an
undesirable or unacceptable alternative as the end systems can not
trust PEPs in general. In addition, this is not as secure as
end-to-end security. And, it can lead to potentially misleading
security level assumptions by the end systems. If the two end systems
negotiate different levels of security with the PEP, the end system
which negotiated the stronger level of security may not be aware that
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
a lower level of security is being provided for part of the
connection. The PEP could be implemented to prevent this from
happening by being smart enough to force the same level of security
to each end system.
With a transparent PEP implementation, it is difficult for the end
systems to trust the PEP because they may not be aware of its
existence. However, IPsec can be implemented between the two PEPs of
a distributed PEP implementation. And, if the PEP implementation is
non-transparent to the users, the users could configure their end
systems to use PEPs as the end points of an IPsec tunnel. In any
case, the authors are currently not aware of any PEP implementations,
transparent or non-transparent, which provide support for IPsec.
<Editor's note: a brief discussion of Multi-layer IPSEC [Zhang99]
could probably be added here.>
Note that even when a PEP implementation does not break the
end-to-end semantics of a connection, the PEP implementation may not
be able to function in the presence of IPsec. For example, it is
difficult to do ACK spacing if the proxy cannot reliably determine
which IP packets contain ACKs of interest.
In most cases, security applied above the transport layer can be used
with PEPs, especially transport layer PEPs.
4.1.2 Fate Sharing
Another important aspect of the end-to-end argument is fate sharing.
If a failure occurs in the network, the ability of the connection to
survive the failure depends upon how much state is being maintained
on behalf of the connection in the network and whether the state is
self-healing. If no connection specific state resides in the network
or such state is self-healing as in case of regular end-to-end
operation, then a failure in the network will break the connection
only if there is no alternate path through the network between the
end systems. And, if there is no path, both end systems can detect
this. However, if the connection depends upon some state being stored
in the network (e.g. in a PEP), then a failure in the network (e.g.
the node containing a PEP crashes) causes this state to be lost,
forcing the connection to terminate even if an alternate path through
the network exists.
The importance of this aspect of the end-to-end argument with respect
to PEPs is very implementation dependent. Sometimes coincidentally
but more often by design, PEPs are used in environments where there
is no alternate path between the end systems and, therefore, a
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
failure of the intermediate node containing a PEP would result in the
termination of the connection in any case. And, even when this is not
the case, the risk of losing the connection in the case of regular
end-to-end operation may exist as the connection could break for some
other reason, for example, a long enough link outage of a last-hop
wireless link to the end host. Therefore, the users may choose to
accept the risk of a PEP crashing in order to take advantage of the
performance gains offered by the PEP implementation. Note that
accepting the risk must be under the control of the user and the
user must always have the option to choose end-to-end operation.
4.1.3 End-to-end Reliability
Another aspect of the end-to-end argument is that of acknowledging
the receipt of data end-to-end in order to achieve reliable
end-to-end delivery of data. An application aiming at reliable
end-to-end delivery must implement an end-to-end check and recovery
at the application level. According to the end-to-end argument, this
is the only possibility to correctly implement reliable end-to-end
operation. Otherwise the application violates the end-to-end
argument. This also means that a correctly designed application can
never fully rely on the transport layer (e.g., TCP) or any other
communication subsystem to provide reliable end-to-end delivery.
First, a TCP connection may break down for some reason and result in
lost data that must be recovered at the application level. Second,
the checksum provided by TCP may be considered inadequate, resulting
in undetected data corruption [Pax99] and requiring application level
check for data corruption. Third, a TCP acknowledgement only
indicates that data was delivered to the TCP implementation on the
other end system. It does not guarantee that the data was delivered
to the application layer on the other end system. Therefore, a well
designed application must use an application layer acknowledgement to
ensure end-to-end delivery of application layer data. Note that this
does not diminish the value of a reliable transport protocol (i.e.,
TCP) as such a protocol allows efficient implementation of several
essential functions (e.g., congestion control) for an application.
If a PEP implementation acknowledges application data prematurely
(before the PEP receives application ACK from the other endpoint),
end-to-end reliability cannot be guaranteed. Typically, application
layer PEPs do not acknowledge data prematurely.
Some Internet applications do not necessarily operate end-to-end in
their regular operation, thus abandoning any end-to-end reliability
guarantee. For example, Internet email delivery often operates via
relay MTAs (relay SMTP servers): an originating MTA (SMTP server)
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
sends the mail message to a relay MTA that receives the mail message,
stores it in non-volatile storage (e.g., on disk) and then sends an
application level acknowledgement. The relay MTA then takes "full
responsibility" for delivering the mail message to the destination
SMTP server (maybe via another relay MTA); it tries to forward the
message for a relatively long time (typically around 5 days). This
scheme does not give a 100% guarantee of email delivery, but
reliability is considered "good enough". An application layer PEP for
this kind of an application may acknowledge application data (mail
message) without essentially decreasing reliability, as long as PEP
operates according to the same procedure as a relay MTA.
Transport layer PEP implementations, including TCP PEPs, generally do
not interfere with end-to-end application layer acknowledgements as
they let applications to operate end-to-end.
4.1.4 End-to-end Failure Diagnostics
- Implications due to PEPs breaking the end-to-end failure
diagnostics.
< Editor's note: contributions providing text are solicited >
4.2 Asymmetric Routing
Deploying a PEP implementation requires that traffic to and from the
end hosts be routed through the intermediate node(s) where PEPs
reside. With some networks, this cannot be accomplished, or it might
require that the intermediate node is located several hops away from
the target link edge which in turn is unpractical in many cases and
may result in non-optimal routing.
4.3 Mobile Hosts
In mobile host environments where a PEP implementation is used to
serve mobile hosts, additional problems are encountered as the PEP
related state information should be transferred to the new PEP
node during a handoff.
When a mobile host moves, it is subject to handovers by the
serving base station. If the base station acts as the intermediate
node and home for the serving PEP, any state information that the
PEP maintains and is required for continuous operation must be
transferred to the new intermediate node to ensure continued
operation of the connection. This requires extra work and causes
overhead. If the mobile host moves to another IP network, routing
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
to and from the mobile host may need to be changed to traverse the
new PEP node.
In most W-WAN wireless networks today, unlike W-LANs, the W-WAN base
station does not provide the mobile host with the connection point
to the wireline Internet (such base stations may not even have an
IP stack). Instead, the W-WAN network takes care of the mobility
and retains the connection point to the wireline Internet unchanged
while the mobile host moves. Thus, PEP state handover is not required
in most W-WANs when the host moves.
4.4 Other Implications
The following subsections describe other implications of using PEPs.
< Editor's note: text for the subsections to be added in later
versions. >
4.4.1 Scalability
- PEPs require more work and therefore will always be (at least)
one step behind routers. The higher the link bandwidth and
the number of connections (packets) traversing through PEP
is, more likely it is that performance becomes an issue.
4.4.2 Multi-Homing Environments
- the effect of multi-homing environments
< Editor's note: contributions providing text are solicited >
4.4.3 QoS Transparency
- QoS transparency implications
< Editor's note: contributions providing text are solicited >
4.4.4 Others
- other possible implications
< Editor's note: contributions addressing other implications and
providing text are solicited >
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
5 PEP Environment Examples
The following sections describe examples of environments where PEP is
currently used to improve performance.
5.1 VSAT Environments
Today, VSAT networks are implemented with geosynchronous satellites.
VSAT data networks are typically implemented using a star topology. A
large hub earth station is located at the center of the star with
VSATs used at the remote sites of the network. Data is sent from the
hub to the remote sites via an outroute. Data is sent from the remote
sites to the hub via one or more inroutes. VSATs represent an
environment with highly asymmetric links, with an outroute typically
much larger than an inroute. Multiple inroutes can be used with each
outroute but any particular VSAT only has access to a single inroute
at a time.
VSAT networks are generally used to implement private networks (i.e.
intranets) for enterprises (e.g. corporations) with geographically
dispersed sites. VSAT networks are rarely, if ever, used to implement
Internet connectivity except at the edge of the Internet (i.e. as the
last hop). Connection to the Internet for the VSAT network is usually
implemented at the VSAT network hub site using appropriate firewall
and (when necessary) NAT [RFC2663] devices.
5.1.1 VSAT Network Characteristics
With respect to TCP performance, VSAT networks exhibit the following
subset of the satellite characteristics documented in [RFC2488]:
Long feedback loops
Propagation delay from a sender to a receiver in a
geosynchronous satellite network can range from 240 to 280
milliseconds, depending on where the sending and receiving
sites are in the satellite footprint. This makes the round
trip time just due to propagation delay at least 480
milliseconds. Queueing delay and delay due to shared channel
access methods can sometimes increase the total delay up to
the order of a few seconds.
Large bandwidth*delay products
VSAT networks can support capacity ranging from a few kilobits
per second up to multiple megabits per second. When combined
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
with the relatively long round trip time, TCP needs to keep a
large number of packets "in flight" in order to fully utilize
the satellite link.
Asymmetric capacity
As indicated above, the outroute of a VSAT network is usually
significantly larger than an inroute. Even though multiple
inroutes can be used within a network, a given VSAT can only
access one inroute at a time. Therefore, the incoming
(outroute) and outgoing (inroute) capacity for a VSAT is often
very asymmetric. As outroute capacity has increased in recent
years, ratios of 400 to 1 or greater are becoming more and more
common. With a TCP maximum segment size of 1460 bytes and
delayed acknowledgements [RFC1122] in use, the ratio of IP
packet bytes for data to IP packet bytes for ACKs is only
(3000 to 40) 75 to 1. Thus, inroute capacity for carrying ACKs
can have a significant impact on TCP performance.
With respect to the other satellite characteristics listed in
[RFC2488], VSAT networks typically do not suffer from intermittent
connectivity or variable round trip times. Also, VSAT networks
generally include a significant amount of error correction coding.
This makes the bit error rate very low during clear sky conditions,
approaching the bit error rate of a typical terrestrial network. In
severe weather, the bit error rate may increase significantly but
such conditions are rare (when looked at from a network availability
point of view) and VSAT networks are generally engineered to work
during these conditions but not to optimize performance during these
conditions.
5.1.2 VSAT Network PEP Implementations
Performance Enhancing Proxies implemented for VSAT networks generally
focus on improving throughput (for applications such as FTP and HTTP
web page retrievals). To a lesser degree, PEP implementations also
work to improve interactive response time for small transactions.
There is not a dominant PEP implementation used with VSAT networks.
Each VSAT network vendor tends to implement their own version of PEP
functionality, integrated with the other features of their VSAT
product. [HNS] and [SPACENET] describe VSAT products with integrated
PEP capabilities. There are also third party PEP implementations
designed to be used with VSAT networks. These products run on nodes
external to the VSAT network at the hub and remote sites. SatBooster
[FLASH] and Venturi [FOURELLE] are examples of such products.
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 19]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
VSAT network PEP implementations generally share the following
characteristics:
- They focus on improving TCP performance;
- They use an asymmetric distributed implementation;
- They use a split connection approach with local acknowledgements
and local retransmissions;
- They support some form of compression to reduce the amount of
bandwidth required (with emphasis on saving inroute bandwidth).
The key differentiators between VSAT network PEP implementations are:
- The maximum throughput they attempt to support (mainly a
function of the amount of buffer space they use);
- The protocol used over the satellite link. Some implementations
use a modified version of TCP while others use a proprietary
protocol running on top of UDP;
- The type of compression used. Third party VSAT network PEP
implementations generally focus on application (e.g. HTTP)
specific compression algorithms while PEP implementations
integrated into the VSAT network generally focus on link
specific compression.
PEP implementations integrated into a VSAT product are generally
transparent to the end systems. Third party PEP implementations used
with VSAT networks are usually translucent, requiring a configuration
change in the remote site end system to route TCP packets to the
remote site proxy. In some cases, the PEP implementation is actually
integrated transparently into the end system node itself, using a
"bump in the stack" approach. In all cases, the use of a PEP is
non-transparent to the user, i.e. the user is aware when a PEP
implementation is being used to boost performance.
5.1.3 VSAT Network PEP Motivation
TBD (in later versions):
<Why>
- Intranet versus Internet
- Highly asymmetric links
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 20]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
- Support for "non-modern" TCP stacks
5.2 W-WAN Environments
< Editor's note: text covering W-WAN example(s) is intended to
include at least the following issues: >
5.2.1 W-WAN Network Characteristics
W-WAN links typically exhibit some combination of the following
link characteristics:
- low bandwidth
- high latency
- high BER, or long variable delays due to local link-layer
error recovery
- some W-WAN links have a lot internal buffers which tend to
accumulate data, thus resulting in increased round-trip delay
due to long variable queuing delays
- unexpected link disconnections may occur frequently (or
intermittent link outages)
- (re)setting link-connection up takes long time
- typically last-hop link to the end user
- W-WAN network typically takes care of terminal mobility: the
connection point to the Internet is retained while the user
moves with the mobile host
5.2.2 W-WAN PEP Implementations
<How/What>
- Mowgli approach [MOWGLI]: Split TCP together with application
layer proxies and W-WAN link specific protocol [KRLKA97] or
with corresponding protocol modifications, compression in
various forms, reduction of round trips, priority-based
multiplexing of data over the W-WAN link, link-level flow
control to prevent data from accumulating into the W-WAN link
internal buffers, ...
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 21]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
<Why>
- transfer volume must be reduced to make Internet access usable,
(long) link disconnections must not abort active (bulk data)
transfers, slow W-WAN link should be efficiently shielded from
excess traffic and the global (wired) Internet congestion,
(all) applications can not be made mobility/W-WAN aware in short
time frame or maybe ever, interactive traffic must be transmitted
in timely manner even if there are other simultaneous bandwidth
intensive (background) transfers...
5.3 W-LAN Environments
Wireless LANs (W-LAN) are typically organized in a cellular topology
where a base station with a W-LAN transceiver controls a single
cell. A cell is defined in terms of the coverage area of the base
station. The base stations are directly connected to the wired
network. The base station in each of the cells is responsible for
forwarding packets to and from the hosts located in the cell. Often
the hosts with W-LAN tranceivers are mobile. When such a mobile host
moves from one cell to another cell, the responsibility for
forwarding packets between the wired network and the mobile host must
be transferred to the base station of the new cell. This is known as
a handoff. Many W-LAN systems also support an operation mode enabling
ad-hoc networking. In this mode base stations are not necessarily
needed, but hosts with W-LAN tranceiver can communicate directly with
the other hosts within the tranceiver's transmission range.
5.3.1 W-LAN Network Characteristics
Current wireless LANs typically provide link bandwidth from 1 Mbps to
10 Mbps, most typically bandwidth being 1 or 2 Mbps. In the future,
wide deployment of higher bandwidths up to 20 Mbps or even higher can
be expected. The round-trip delay with wireless LANs is on the order
of a few milliseconds or tens of milliseconds. Examples of W-LANs
include ... <[TBD>.
Wireless LANs are error-prone due to wireless link corruption. TCP
performance over W-LANs or a network path involving a W-LAN link
suffers as packet losses due to wireless bit errors tend to occur
in bursts. In addition, consecutive packet losses may occur also
during handoffs.
As TCP wrongly interprets these packet losses to be network
congestion, the TCP sender reduces its congestion window and is
often forced to timeout in order to recover from the consecutive
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 22]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
losses. The result is often unacceptably poor end-to-end performance.
5.3.2 W-LAN PEP Implementations: Snoop
Berkeley's Snoop protocol [SNOOP] is a TCP-specific approach in which
a TCP-aware module, a Snoop agent, is deployed at the W-LAN base
station that acts as the last-hop router to the mobile host. Snoop
aims at retaining the TCP end-to-end semantics. The Snoop agent
monitors every packet that passes through the base station in either
direction and maintains soft state for each TCP connection. The Snoop
agent is an asymmetric PEP implementation as it operates differently
on TCP data and ACK channels as well as on the uplink (from the
mobile host) and downlink (to the mobile host) TCP segments.
For a data transfer to a mobile host, the Snoop agent caches
unacknowledged TCP data segments which it forwards to the TCP
receiver and monitors the corresponding ACKs. It does two things:
1. Retransmits any lost data segments locally by using local timers
and TCP duplicate ACKs to identify packet loss, instead of
waiting for the TCP sender to do so end-to-end.
2. Suppresses the duplicate ACKs on their way from the mobile host
back to the sender, thus avoiding fast retransmit and congestion
avoidance at the latter.
Suppressing the duplicate ACKs is required to avoid unnecessary fast
retransmits by the TCP sender as the Snoop agent retransmits a packet
locally. Consider a system that employs the Snoop agent and a TCP
sender S that sends packets to receiver R via a base station BS.
Assume that S sends packets A, B, C, D, E (in that order) which are
forwarded by BS to the wireless receiver R. Assume the first
transmission of packet B is lost due to errors on the wireless link.
In this case, R receives packets A, C, D, E and B (in that order).
Receipt of packets C, D and E trigger duplicate ACKs. When the S
receives three duplicate ACKs, it triggers fast retransmit (which
results in a retransmission, as well as reduction of the congestion
window). The Snoop agent also retransmits B locally, when it receives
three duplicate ACKs. The fast retransmit at S occurs despite the
local retransmit on the wireless link, degrading throughput. Snoop
deals with this problem by dropping TCP duplicate ACKs appropriately
at BS.
For a data transfer from a mobile host, the Snoop agent detects the
packet losses on the wireless link by monitoring the data segments
it forwards. It then employs either Negative Acknowledgements (NAK)
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 23]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
locally or Explicit Loss Notifications (ELN) to inform the mobile
sender that the packet loss was not related to congestion, thus
allowing the sender to retransmit without triggering normal
congestion control procedures. To implement this, changes at the
mobile host are required.
When a Snoop agent uses NAKs to inform the TCP sender of the packet
losses on the wireless link, one possibility to implement them is
using the Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) option of TCP [RFC2018].
This requires enabling SACK processing at the mobile host. The Snoop
agent sends a TCP SACK, when it detects a hole in the transmission
sequence from the mobile host or when it has not received any new
packets from the mobile host for a certain time period. This approach
relies on the advisory nature of the SACKs: the mobile sender is
advised to retransmit the missing segments indicated by SACK, but it
must not assume successful end-to-end delivery of the segments
acknowledged with SACK as these segments might get lost in the later
path to the receiver. Instead, the sender must wait for a cumulative
ACK to arrive.
When the ELN mechanism is used to inform the mobile sender of the
packet losses, Snoop uses one of the 'unreserved' bits in the TCP
header for ELN [SNOOPELN]. The Snoop agent keeps track of the holes
that correspond to segments lost over the wireless link. When a
(duplicate) ACK corresponding to a hole in the sequence space arrives
from the TCP receiver, the Snoop agent sets the ELN bit on the ACK to
indicate that the loss is unrelated to congestion and then forwards
the ACK to the TCP sender. When the sender receives a certain number
of (duplicate) ACKs with ELN (a configurable variable at the mobile
host, e.g., two), it retransmit the missing segment without
performing any congestion control measures.
The ELN mechanism using one of the six bits reserved for future use
in the TCP header is dangerous as it exercises checks that might not
be correctly implemented in TCP stacks, and may expose bugs.
A scheme such as Snoop is needed only if the possibility of a fast
retransmit due to wireless errors is non-negligible. In particular,
if the wireless link uses link-layer recovery for lost data, then
this scheme is not beneficial. Also, if the TCP window tends to stay
smaller than four segments, for example, due to congestion related
losses on the wired network, the probability that the Snoop agent
will have an opportunity to locally retransmit a lost packet is
small. This is because at least three duplicate ACKs are needed to
trigger the local retransmission, but due to small window the Snoop
agent may not be able to forward three new packets after the lost
packet and thus induce the required three duplicate ACKs. Conversely,
when the TCP window is large enough, Snoop can provide significant
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 24]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
performance improvement (compared with standard TCP).
< TBD: some text how Snoop tries to alleviate the problem with small
windows >
Snoop requires the intermediate node (base station) to examine and
operate on the traffic between the mobile host and the other end
host on the wired Internet. Hence, Snoop does not work if the IP
traffic is encrypted. Possible solutions involve:
- making the Snoop agent a party to the security association between
the client and the server;
- IPsec tunneling mode, terminated at the Snooping base station.
However, these techniques require that users trust base stations.
Snoop also requires that both the data and the corresponding ACKs
traverse the same base station. Furthermore, the Snoop agent may
duplicate efforts by the link layer as it retransmits the TCP data
segments "at the transport layer" across the wireless link.
(Snop has been described by its designers as a TCP-aware link layer.
This is the right approach: the link and network layers can be much
more aware of each other than strict layering suggests.)
<Why>
- to alleviate local link pkt drops due to high-BER (wireless) link
6 Security Considerations
The security implications of using PEP are discussed in Section
4.1.1.
<Are there other security considerations which need mentioning?>
7 Appendix - PEP Terminology Summary
This appendix provides a summary of terminology frequently used
during discussion of Performance Enhancing Proxies. (In some cases,
these terms have different meanings from their non-PEP related
usage.)
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 25]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
7.1 Definitions
ACK spacing
Delayed forwarding of acknowledgements in order to space them
appropriately.
application layer PEP
Performance enhancement operating above the transport layer.
May be aimed at improving application or transport protocol
performance (or both).
asymmetric link
A link which has different rates for the forward channel (used for
data segments) and the back (or return) channel (used for ACKs).
available bandwidth
The total capacity of a link available to carry information at any
given time. May be lower than the raw bandwidth due to competing
traffic.
bandwidth utilization
The actual amount of information delivered over a link in a given
period, expressed as a percent of the raw bandwidth of the link.
gateway
Has several meanings depending on context:
- An access point to a particular link;
- A device capable of initiating and terminating connections on
behalf of a user or end system (e.g. a firewall or proxy).
Not necessarily, but could be, a router.
in flight (data)
Data sent but not yet acknowledged. More precisely, data sent for
which the sender has not yet received the acknowledgement.
local acknowledgement
The generation of acknowledgements by an entity in the path
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 26]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
between two end systems in order to allow the sending system to
transmit more data without waiting for end-to-end
acknowledgements.
performance enhancing proxy
<the definition is subject to change>
An entity in the network acting on behalf of an end system or user
(with or without the knowledge of the end system or user) in order
to enhance protocol performance.
raw bandwidth
The total capacity of an unloaded link available to carry
information.
Snoop
A TCP-aware link layer developed for wireless packet radio and
cellular networks. It works by caching segments at a wireless
base station. If the base station sees duplicate acknowledgements
for a segment that it has cached, it retransmits the missing
segment while suppressing the duplicate acknowledgement stream
being forwarded back to the sender until the wireless receiver
starts to acknowledge new data. Described in detail in [SNOOP].
split connection
A connection that has been terminated before reaching the intended
destination end system in order to initiate another connection
towards the end system.
TCP PEP
Performance enhancement operating at the transport layer with TCP.
Aimed at improving TCP performance.
TCP splitting
Using one or more split connections to improve TCP performance.
TCP spoofing
<the definition is subject to change>
( Sometimes used as a synonym for TCP PEP but more accurately refers
to using transparent mechanisms to improve TCP performance. )
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 27]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
transparent
<the definition is subject to change: refine per layer>
( Requires no changes to be made to either end system involved in a
connection.)
tunneling
<the definition is subject to change>
The process of wrapping a packet for transmission over a
particular link.
8 Acknowledgements
This document grew out of the Internet-Drafts "TCP Performance
Enhancing Proxy Terminology" and "Long Thin Networks" and the work
done in the IETF TCPSAT working group.
9 References
[AGG+99] M. Allman, D. Glover, J. Griner, T. Henderson, J.
Heidemann, H. Kruse, S. Ostermann, K. Scott, J. Semke, J. Touch,
D. Tran, "Ongoing TCP Research Related to Satellites," Internet
Draft (draft-ietf-tcpsat-res-issues-12.txt), Work in progress,
October 1999.
[BaPa99] H. Balakrishnan, V.N. Padmanabhan, "TCP Performance
Implications of Network Asymmetry," Internet Draft
(draft-ietf-pilc-asym-00.txt), Work in progress, September
1999.
[CTC+97] H. Chang, C. Tait, N. Cohen, M. Shapiro, S. Mastrianni,
R. Floyd, B. Housel, D. Lindquist, "Web Browsing in a Wireless
Environment: Disconnected and Asynchronous Operation in ARTour Web
Express," in proceedings of MobiCom'97, Budapest, Hungary,
September 1997.
[FMSBMR98] D.C. Feldmeier, A.J. McAuley, J.M. Smith, D.S. Bakin,
W.S. Marcus, T.M. Raleigh, "Protocol Boosters," in IEEE Journal
on Selected Areas of Communication, volume 16, number 3, April
1998.
[FLASH] Flash Networks Ltd., performance boosting products technology
vendor based in Kerselia, Israel. Website at
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 28]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
http://www.flash-networks.com/
[FOURELLE] Fourelle Systems, performance boosting products
technology vendor based in Santa Clara, California. Website at
http://www.fourelle.com/
[HNS] Hughes Network Systems, Inc., VSAT technology vendor based in
Germantown, Maryland. Website at http://www.hns.com/
[I-TCP] A. Bakre, B.R. Badrinath, "I-TCP: Indirect TCP for Mobile
Hosts," in proceedings of the 15th International Conference on
Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), May 1995.
[Karn99] P. Karn, A. Falk, J. Touch, M-J. Montpetit, J. Mahdavi,
G., Montenegro, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers,"
Internet Draft (draft-ietf-pilc-link-design-01.txt), Work in
progress, October 1999.
[KRA94] M. Kojo, K. Raatikainen, T. Alanko, "Connecting Mobile
Workstations to the Internet over a Digital Cellular Telephone
Network," in Proc. Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Information
Systems (MOBIDATA), Rutgers University, NJ, November 1994.
Revised version published in Mobile Computing, pp. 253-270,
Kluwer, 1996.
[KRLKA97] M. Kojo, K. Raatikainen, M. Liljeberg, J. Kiiskinen,
T. Alanko, "An Efficient Transport Service for Slow Wireless
Telephone Links," in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of
Communication, volume 15, number 7, September 1997.
[LHKR96] M. Liljeberg, H. Helin, M. Kojo, K. Raatikainen, "Mowgli
WWW Software: Improved Usability of WWW in Mobile WAN
Environments," in proceedings of IEEE Global Internet 1996
Conference, London, UK, November 1996.
[M-TCP] K. Brown, S. Singh, "M-TCP: TCP for Mobile Cellular
Networks," ACM Computer Communications Review Volume 27(5), 1997.
Available at ftp://ftp.ece.orst.edu/pub/singh/papers/mtcp.ps.gz.
[Part98] C. Partridge, "ACK Spacing for High Delay-Bandwidth Paths
with Insufficient Buffering," September 1998. Internet-Draft
draft-rfced-info-partridge-01.txt (work in progress).
[Pax99] V. Paxson, "End-to-End Internet Packet Dynamics," IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Networking, Vol 7, Number 3, 1999, pp 277-292.
[RFC0793] J. Postel, "Transmission Control Protocol," STD 7,
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 29]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1122] R. Braden, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Communications Layers," STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1144] V. Jacobson, "Compressiing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed
Serial Links," RFC 1144, February 1990.
[RFC1323] V. Jacobson, R. Braden, D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for
High Performance," RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC1958] B. Carpenter, "Architectural Principles of the Internet,"
RFC 1958, June 1996.
[RFC2018] M. Mathis, J. Mahdavi, S. Floyd, and A. Romanow,
"TCP Selective Acknowledgment Options," RFC 2018, October, 1996.
[RFC2246] T. Dierk, E. Allen, "TLS Protocol Version 1", RFC
2246, January 1999.
[RFC2393] A. Shacham, R. Monsour, R. Pereira, M. Thomas, "IP Payload
Compression Protocol (IPcomp)," RFC 2393, December 1998.
[RFC2488] M. Allman, D. Glover, L. Sanchez, "Enhancing TCP Over
Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms," BCP 28, RFC 2488,
January 1999.
[RFC2507] M. Degermark, B. Nordgren, S. Pink, "IP Header
Compression," RFC 2507, February 1999.
[RFC2508] S. Casner, V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers
for Low-Speed Serial Links," RFC 2508, February 1999.
[RFC2509] M. Engan, S. Casner, C. Bormann, "IP Header Compression
over PPP," RFC 2509, February 1999.
[RFC2663] P. Srisuresh, M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address Translator
(NAT) Terminology and Considerations," RFC 2663, August 1999.
[SNOOP] H. Balakrishnan, S. Seshan, E. Amir, R. Katz, "Improving
TCP/IP Performance over Wireless Networks," in proceedings of the
1st ACM Conference on Mobile Communications and Networking
(Mobicom), Berkeley, CA, November 1995.
[SNOOPELN] H. Balakrishnan, R. Katz, "Explicit Loss Notification
and Wireless Web Performance," In Proc. IEEE Globecom 1998,
Internet Mini-Conference, Sydney, Australia, November 1998.
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 30]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
[SPACENET] Spacenet, VSAT technology vendor based in Mclean,
Virginia. Website at http://www.spacenet.com/
[SRC84] J.H. Saltzer, D.P. Reed, D.D. Clark, "End-To-End Arguments
in System Design," ACM TOCS, Vol 2, Number 4, November 1984,
pp 277-288.
[Zhang99] Y. Zhang, "Multi-Layer Protection Scheme for IPSEC,"
Internet Draft (draft-zhang-ipsec-mlipsec-00.txt), Work in
progress, October 1999.
10 Authors' Addresses
Questions about this document may be directed to:
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 31]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
John Border
Hughes Network Systems
11717 Exploration Lane
Germantown, Maryland 20876
Voice: +1-301-601-4099
Fax: +1-301-601-4275
E-Mail: border@hns.com
Markku Kojo
University of Helsinki/Department of Computer Science
P.O. Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
FIN-00014 HELSINKI
Finland
Voice: +358-9-7084-4179
Fax: +358-9-7084-4441
E-Mail: kojo@cs.helsinki.fi
Jim Griner
NASA Glenn Research Center
MS: 54-2
21000 Brookpark Orad
Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191
Voice: +1-216-433-5787
Fax: +1-216-433-8705
E-Mail: jgriner@grc.nasa.gov
Gabriel E. Montenegro
Sun Labs Networking and Security Group
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
901 San Antonio Road
Mailstop UMPK 15-214
Mountain View, California 94303
Voice: +1-650-786-6288
Fax: +1-650-786-6445
E-Mail: gab@sun.com
11 Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 32]
INTERNET DRAFT Performance Enhancing Proxies December 1999
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Expires June 3, 2000 [Page 33]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 06:24:50 |