Multipath QUIC: Design and Evaluation

Transcription

1 Multipath QUIC: Design and Evaluation Quentin De Coninck, Olivier Bonaventure multipath-quic.org

2 QUIC = Quick UDP Internet Connection TCP/TLS1.3 atop UDP Stream multiplexing HTTP/2 use case 0-RTT establishment (most of the time) HTTP/2 TLS TCP IP HTTP/2 shim QUIC UDP IP 2

3 QUIC Packet Flags Connection ID Packet Number Encrypted Payload... 3

4 QUIC Packet Flags Connection ID Packet Number Encrypted Payload... Cleartext Public Header 4

5 QUIC Packet Does not depend on 4-tuple Flags Connection ID Packet Number Encrypted Payload... Cleartext Public Header 5

6 QUIC Packet Does not depend on 4-tuple Monotonically Increasing Flags Connection ID Packet Number Encrypted Payload... Cleartext Public Header 6

7 QUIC Packet Does not depend on 4-tuple Monotonically Increasing Flags Connection ID Packet Number Contains control/data frames Encrypted Payload... Cleartext Public Header 7

8 QUIC Data Transfer H1 H2 8

9 QUIC Data Transfer H1 F CID PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==): Some data in my long frame H2 9

10 QUIC Data Transfer H1 Actual data F CID PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==): Some data in my long frame H2 10

11 QUIC Data Transfer H1 F CID PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==): Some data in my long frame F CID PN=19 H2 ACK(25) MAX_DATA(for stream=5): 1=24 11

12 QUIC Data Transfer H1 F CID PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==): Some data in my long frame H2 Control Frames F CID PN=19 ACK(25) MAX_DATA(for stream=5): 1=24 12

13 QUIC Data Transfer H1 F CID PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==): Some data in my long frame F CID PN=19 H2 ACK(25) MAX_DATA(for stream=5): 1=24 F CID PN=26 STREAM(id=5,of=26):. STREAM(id=7,of==): Y ACK(19) 13

14 QUIC Data Transfer H1 F CID PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==): Some data in my long frame F CID PN=19 H2 ACK(25) MAX_DATA(for stream=5): 1=24 Multiplexing F CID PN=26 STREAM(id=5,of=26):. STREAM(id=7,of==): Y ACK(19) 14

15 QUIC Data Transfer H1 F CID PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==): Some data in my long frame F CID PN=19 H2 ACK(25) MAX_DATA(for stream=5): 1=24 F CID PN=26 STREAM(id=5,of=26):. STREAM(id=7,of==): Y ACK(19) F CID PN=2= ACK(26) 15

16 Why Multipath QUIC? QUIC assumes a single-path foo 16

17 Why Multipath QUIC? QUIC assumes a single-path foo 17

18 Why Multipath QUIC? QUIC assumes a single-path foo 18

19 Why Multipath QUIC? QUIC assumes a single-path foo Multipath QUIC Bandwidth aggregation Seamless network handover Can try new WiFi while keeping using LTE 19

20 Design of Multipath QUIC Connection is composed of a set of paths 20

21 Design of Multipath QUIC Connection is composed of a set of paths 21

22 Design of Multipath QUIC Connection is composed of a set of paths? Pkt Performance monitoring? Loss detection? Path congestion control? 22

23 Design of Multipath QUIC Connection is composed of a set of paths Pkt 23

24 Design of Multipath QUIC Connection is composed of a set of paths Pkt Flags Connection ID Path ID Packet Number Explicit path identifcation Encrypted Payload... 24

25 Design of Multipath QUIC Connection is composed of a set of paths Pkt Flags Connection ID Path ID Packet Number Explicit path identifcation No path handshake Encrypted Payload... 25

26 Design of Multipath QUIC Connection is composed of a set of paths Pkt Flags Connection ID Path ID Packet Number Explicit path identifcation Encrypted Payload... Per-path numbering space No path handshake 26

27 Multipath QUIC Data Transfer Server via WiFi Server via LTE Phone Path 1: WiFi Path 2: LTE 27

28 Multipath QUIC Data Transfer Server via WiFi F CID 1 PN=1 STR(id=5) Path 1: WiFi Server via LTE Phone Path 2: LTE 28

29 Multipath QUIC Data Transfer Server via WiFi F CID 1 PN=1 STR(id=5) F CID 1 PN=1 STR(id=7,of==) Path 1: WiFi Server via LTE Phone F CID 2 PN=1 STR(id=7,of=1=24) Path 2: LTE 29

30 Multipath QUIC Data Transfer Server via WiFi F CID 1 PN=1 STR(id=5) F CID 1 PN=1 STR(id=7,of==) Server via LTE Phone F CID 2 PN=1 STR(id=7,of=1=24) F CID 1 PN=2 ACK(pid=1,1) ACK(pid=2,1) Path 1: WiFi Path 2: LTE 30

31 Multipath QUIC Data Transfer Server via WiFi F CID 1 PN=1 STR(id=5) F CID 1 PN=1 STR(id=7,of==) Server via LTE Phone F CID 2 PN=1 STR(id=7,of=1=24) F CID 1 PN=2 ACK(pid=1,1) ACK(pid=2,1) Path 1: WiFi Multiple paths acked on a single path Path 2: LTE 31

32 Multipath Mechanisms Path management IP1 IP3 IP2 IP4 32

33 Multipath Mechanisms Path management IP1 IP3 IP2 IP4 33

34 Multipath Mechanisms Path management IP1 IP3 IP2 IP4 Packet scheduling 2= ms RTT 10 ms RTT 34

35 Multipath Mechanisms Path management IP1 IP3 IP2 IP4 Packet scheduling 2= ms RTT 10 ms RTT 35

36 Multipath Mechanisms Path management IP1 IP3 IP2 IP4 Packet scheduling 2= ms RTT 10 ms RTT 2= ms RTT? 36

37 Multipath Mechanisms Path management IP1 IP3 IP2 IP4 Packet scheduling 2= ms RTT 10 ms RTT 2= ms RTT Duplicate? 37

38 Multipath Mechanisms Path management IP3 IP2 IP4 Packet scheduling 2= ms RTT 10 ms RTT IP1 2= ms RTT Duplicate? Congestion control Opportunistic Linked Increase Algorithm 38

39 Evaluation of Multipath QUIC (Multipath) QUIC vs. (Multipath) TCP Multipath QUIC: quic-go Linux Multipath TCP v=.91 with default settings Mininet environment oith 2 paths 39

40 Evaluating Bandoith Aggregation Doonload of 20 MB fle Over a single stream Collect the transfer time 40

41 Evaluating Bandoith Aggregation Doonload of 20 MB fle Over a single stream Collect the transfer time For a loss-free scenario 2=ms RTT, 2= Mbps 4=ms RTT, 15 Mbps 41

42 Evaluating Bandoith Aggregation Doonload of 20 MB fle Over a single stream Collect the transfer time For a loss-free scenario 2=ms RTT, 2= Mbps 4=ms RTT, 15 Mbps MPQUIC has 13% speedup compared to MPTCP 42

43 Evaluating Bandoith Aggregation Doonload of 20 MB fle Over a single stream Collect the transfer time For a loss-free scenario 2=ms RTT, 2= Mbps 4=ms RTT, 15 Mbps MPQUIC has 13% speedup compared to MPTCP But ohat about other topologies? 43

44 Evaluating Bandoidth Aggregation Experimental design, WSP algorithm 2x253 netoork scenarios Vary the initial path Median over 15 runs Factor Minimum Maximum Capacity [Mbps] Round-Trip-Time [ms] 0 50 Queuing Delay [ms] Random Loss [%]

45 Large File Doonload No Loss TCP better QUIC better 45

46 Large File Doonload No Loss Single-path TCP better QUIC better 46

47 Large File Doonload No Loss 47

48 Large File Doonload No Loss MPQUIC better in 85% of cases 48

49 Large File Doonload No Loss MPQUIC better in 85% of cases Our extracted scenario 49

50 Large File Doonload No Loss MPQUIC better in 85% of cases Path 1: 27.2 ms RTT, =.14 Mbps, 34 ms queuing delay Path 2: 46.4 ms RTT, Mbps, 47 ms queuing delay Path 1: 49.4 ms RTT, 18.9= Mbps, 82 ms queing delay Path 2: 1=.6 ms RTT, =.43 Mbps, 11 ms queuing delay Our extracted scenario 50

51 Large File Doonload Losses 51

52 Large File Doonload Losses QUIC copes better with losses 52

53 Additional Results (see paper) QUIC benefts more of Multipath than TCP Bandoidth aggregation in high BDP Short fle transfers MPQUIC still better performs than MPTCP (MP)QUIC better thanks to its low latency handshake Netoork handover MPQUIC can be very efcient New frame to communicate path state 53

54 Conclusion Multipath should be part of any transport protocol Most devices are multihomed Designed and implemented Multipath QUIC Source code + artifacts + IETF draft available See multipath-quic.org Multipath more promising oith QUIC than TCP 54

55 What s Next? Perform tests in actual netoorks Does (MP)QUIC work in your networks? Does MPQUIC provides better performances? Application running on ios11 Feel free to provide feedback :-) QUICTester 55

56 Thanks! multipath-quic.org 56