Structured streams: a new transport abstraction

Abstract

Internet applications currently have a choice between stream and datagram transport abstractions. Datagrams efficiently support small transactions and streams are suited for long-running conversations, but neither abstraction adequately supports applications like HTTP that exhibit a mixture of transaction sizes, or applications like FTP and SIP that use multiple transport instances. Structured Stream Transport (SST) enhances the traditional stream abstraction with a hierarchical hereditary structure, allowing applications to create lightweight child streams from any existing stream. Unlike TCP streams, these lightweight streams incur neither 3-way handshaking delays on startup nor TIME-WAIT periods on close. Each stream offers independent data transfer and flow control, allowing different transactions to proceed in parallel without head-of-line blocking, but all streams share one congestion control context. SST supports both reliable and best-effort delivery in a way that semantically unifies datagrams with streams and solves the classic "large datagram" problem, where a datagram's loss probability increases exponentially with fragment count. Finally, an application can prioritize its streams relative to each other and adjust priorities dynamically through out-of-band signaling. A user-space prototype shows that SST is TCP-friendly to within 2%, and performs comparably to a user-space TCP and to within 10% of kernel TCP on a WiFi network.

References

1. William Aiello et al. Just Fast Keying: Key Agreement In A Hostile Internet. TISSEC, 7(2):1--32, May 2004.
2. M. Allman, V. Paxson, and W. Stevens. TCP congestion control, April 1999. RFC 2581.
3. Hari Balakrishnan et al. TCP behavior of a busy Internet server: Analysis and improvements. In IEEE INFOCOM, March 1998.
4. Hari Balakrishnan, Hariharan S. Rahul, and Srinivasan Seshan. An integrated congestion management architecture for Internet hosts. In ACM SIGCOMM, September 1999.
5. S. Bellovin. Defending against sequence number attacks, May 1996. RFC 1948.
6. Jon C. R. Bennett, Craig Partridge, and Nicholas Shectman. Packet reordering is not pathological network behavior. Transactions on Networking, 7:789--798, December 1999.
7. Jon C. R. Bennett and Hui Zhang. Hierarchical packet fair queueing algorithms. In ACM SIGCOMM, pages 143--156, 1996.
8. T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, and H. Frystyk. Hypertext transfer protocol - HTTP/1.0, May 1996. RFC 1945.
9. Andrew D. Birrell and Bruce Jay Nelson. Implementing remote procedure calls. Transactions on Computer Systems, 2(1):39--59, February 1984.
10. E. Blanton and M. Allman. On making TCP more robust to packet reordering. Computer Communications Review, 32(1), January 2002.
11. R. Braden. Towards a transport service for transaction processing applications, September 1985. RFC 955.
12. R. Braden. T/TCP - TCP extensions for transactions, July 1994. RFC 1644.
13. David R. Cheriton. VMTP: A transport protocol for the next generation of communication systems. Computer Communications Review, 16(3):406--415, August 1986.
14. D. D. Clark and D. L. Tennenhouse. Architectural considerations for a new generation of protocols. In ACM SIGCOMM, pages 200--208, 1990.
15. David D. Clark. Window and acknowledgement strategy in TCP, July 1982. RFC 813.
16. Yogen K. Dalal. More on selecting sequence numbers. SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 9(3):25--36, July 1975.
17. T. Dierks and C. Allen. The TLS protocol version 1.0, January 1999. RFC 2246.
18. Theodore Faber, Joe Touch, and Wei Yue. The TIME-WAIT state in TCP and its effects on busy servers. In IEEE INFOCOM, volume 3, pages 1573--1583, March 1999.
19. R. Fielding et al. Hypertext transfer protocol - HTTP/1.1, June 1999. RFC 2616.
20. S. Floyd, J. Mahdavi, M. Mathis, and M. Podolsky. An extension to the selective acknowledgement (SACK) option for TCP, July 2000. RFC 2883.
21. Bryan Ford. Scalable Internet routing on topology-independent node identities. Technical Report 926, MIT LCS MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, October 2003.
22. Bryan Ford et al. Persistent personal names for globally connected mobile devices. In 7th OSDI USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, November 2006.
23. Jim Gettys. Simple MUX protocol specification, October 1996. W3C Working Draft.
24. V. Gurbani and S. Lawrence. Handling large User Datagram Protocol responses in the Session Initiation Protocol, October 2006. Internet-Draft (Work in Progress).
25. M. Handley, S. Floyd, J. Padhye, and J. Widmer. TCP friendly rate control (TFRC): Protocol specification, January 2003. RFC 3448.
26. M. Holdrege and P. Srisuresh. Protocol complications with the IP network address translator, January 2001. RFC 3027.
27. The internet traffic archive. http://ita.ee.lbl.gov/.
28. Janardhan R. Iyengar, Paul D. Amer, and Randall Stewart. Concurrent multipath transfer using SCTP multihoming over independent end-to-end paths Transactions on Networking, 14(5):951--964, October 2006.
29. V. Jacobson, R. Braden, and D. Borman. TCP extensions for high performance, May 1992. RFC 1323.
30. S. Kent. IP encapsulating security payload (ESP), December 2005. RFC 4303.
31. S. Kent and K. Seo. Security architecture for the Internet Protocol, December 2005. RFC 4301.
32. E. Kohler, M. Handley, and S. Floyd. Datagram congestion control protocol (DCCP), March 2006. RFC 4340.
33. Venkat Kudallur et al. IE7 networking improvements in content caching and decompression. IEBlog, October 2005.
34. M. Mathis, J. Mahdav, S. Floyd, and A. Romanow. TCP selective acknowledgment options, October 1996. RFC 2018.
35. M. Mathis and J. Mahdavi. Forward acknowledgement: Refining TCP congestion control. In ACM SIGCOMM, August 1996.
36. R. Moskowitz and P. Nikander. Host identity protocol (HIP) architecture, May 2006. RFC 4423.
37. Mozilla.org. Firefox tips & tricks: Pipelining. http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/tips#oth_pipelining.
38. H. F. Nielsen et al. Network performance effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG, June 1997. W3C NOTE-pipelining-970624.
39. C. Partridge and R. Hinden. Version 2 of the reliable data protocol (RDP), April 1990. RFC 1151.
40. Craig Partridge. Implementing the reliable data protocol (RDP). In USENIX Summer Conference, June 1987.
41. J. Postel. User datagram protocol, August 1980. RFC 768.
42. J. Postel and J. Reynolds. File transfer protocol (FTP), October 1985. RFC 959.
43. E. Rescorla and N. Modadugu. Datagram transport layer security, April 2006. RFC 4347.
44. M. Rose. The blocks extensible exchange protocol core, March 2001. RFC 3080.
45. J. Rosenberg et al. SIP: session initiation protocol, June 2002. RFC 3261.
46. H. Schulzrinne et al. RTP: A transport protocol for real-time applications, July 2003. RFC 3550.
47. Alex C. Snoeren and Hari Balakrishnan. An end-to-end approach to host mobility. In 6th MOBICOM ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, August 2000.
48. Alex C. Snoeren, Hari Balakrishnan, and M. Frans Kaashoek. Reconsidering Internet mobility. In HotOS-VIII 8th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, May 2001.
49. R. Stewart et al. Stream control transmission protocol, October 2000. RFC 2960.
50. Lakshminarayanan Subramanian et al. OverQoS: An overlay based architecture for enhancing Internet QoS. In 1st NSDI USENIX/ACM Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI '04), San Francisco, CA, March 2004.
51. Carl A. Sunshine and Yogen K. Dalal. Connection management in transport protocols. Computer Networks, 2(6):454--473, December 1978.
52. Transmission control protocol, September 1981. RFC 793.
53. Raymond S. Tomlinson. Selecting sequence numbers. SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 9(3):11--23, July 1975.
54. J. Touch. TCP control block interdependence, April 1997. RFC 2140.
55. T. Ylonen and C. Lonvick, Ed. The secure shell protocol architecture, January 2006. RFC 4251.
56. Hui Zhang and Srinivasan Keshav. Comparison of rate-based service disciplines. In ACM SIGCOMM, pages 113--121, 1991.

Index Terms

• General and reference

  • Document types

    • Computing standards, RFCs and guidelines

• Networks

  • Network protocols