multipath quic: design and evaluation

Multipath QUIC: Design and Evaluation

Quentin De Coninck, Olivier Bonaventurequentin.deconinck@uclouvain.be

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)

IPTCPTLS

HTTP/2

IPUDP

QUIC

HTTP/2 shim

3

QUIC Packet

Connection IDFlags Packet Number Encrypted Payload...

4

QUIC Packet

Connection IDFlags Packet Number Encrypted Payload...

Cleartext Public Header

5

QUIC Packet

Connection IDFlags Packet Number Encrypted Payload...

Cleartext Public Header

Does not depend on 4-tuple

6

QUIC Packet

Connection IDFlags Packet Number Encrypted Payload...

Cleartext Public Header

Does not depend on 4-tuple

Monotonically Increasing

7

QUIC Packet

Connection IDFlags Packet Number Encrypted Payload...

Cleartext Public Header

Does not depend on 4-tuple

Monotonically Increasing Contains control/data frames

8

QUIC Data Transfer

H2H1

9

QUIC Data Transfer

CIDF PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==):”Some data in my long frame”H2H1

10

QUIC Data Transfer

CIDF PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==):”Some data in my long frame”H2H1

Actual data

11

QUIC Data Transfer

CIDF PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==):”Some data in my long frame”

CIDF PN=19 ACK(25) MAX_DATA(for stream=5): 1=24

H2H1

12

QUIC Data Transfer

CIDF PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==):”Some data in my long frame”

CIDF PN=19 ACK(25) MAX_DATA(for stream=5): 1=24

H2H1

Control Frames

13

QUIC Data Transfer

CIDF PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==):”Some data in my long frame”

CIDF PN=19 ACK(25) MAX_DATA(for stream=5): 1=24

CIDF PN=26 STREAM(id=5,of=26):”.” STREAM(id=7,of==):”Y” ACK(19)

H2H1

14

QUIC Data Transfer

CIDF PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==):”Some data in my long frame”

CIDF PN=19 ACK(25) MAX_DATA(for stream=5): 1=24

CIDF PN=26 STREAM(id=5,of=26):”.” STREAM(id=7,of==):”Y” ACK(19)

H2H1

Multiplexing

15

QUIC Data Transfer

CIDF PN=25 STREAM(id=5,of==):”Some data in my long frame”

CIDF PN=19 ACK(25) MAX_DATA(for stream=5): 1=24

CIDF PN=2= ACK(26)

CIDF PN=26 STREAM(id=5,of=26):”.” STREAM(id=7,of==):”Y” ACK(19)

H2H1

16

Why Multipath QUIC?

● QUIC assumes a single-path foo

17

Why Multipath QUIC?

● QUIC assumes a single-path foo

18

Why Multipath QUIC?

● QUIC assumes a single-path foo

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

20

Design of Multipath QUIC

● Connection is composed of a set of paths

21

Design of Multipath QUIC

● Connection is composed of a set of paths

22

Design of Multipath QUIC

● Connection is composed of a set of paths

Pkt?

Performance monitoring?Loss detection?Path congestion control?

23

Design of Multipath QUIC

● Connection is composed of a set of paths

Pkt

24

Design of Multipath QUIC

● Connection is composed of a set of paths

Connection IDFlags Packet Number Encrypted Payload...Path ID

Pkt

Explicit path identifcation

25

Design of Multipath QUIC

● Connection is composed of a set of paths

Connection IDFlags Packet Number Encrypted Payload...Path ID

Pkt

Explicit path identifcation No path handshake

26

Design of Multipath QUIC

● Connection is composed of a set of paths

Connection IDFlags Packet Number Encrypted Payload...Path ID

Pkt

Explicit path identifcation

Per-path numbering space

No path handshake

27

Multipath QUIC Data Transfer

Server via WiFi

Server via LTE

Phone

Path 1: WiFi Path 2: LTE

28

Multipath QUIC Data Transfer

Server via WiFi

Server via LTE

PhoneCIDF PN=1 STR(id=5)1

Path 1: WiFi Path 2: LTE

29

Multipath QUIC Data Transfer

Server via WiFi

Server via LTE

PhoneCIDF PN=1 STR(id=5)1

CIDF PN=1 STR(id=7,of==)1 CIDF PN=1 STR(id=7,of=1=24)2

Path 1: WiFi Path 2: LTE

30

Multipath QUIC Data Transfer

Server via WiFi

Server via LTE

PhoneCIDF PN=1 STR(id=5)1

CIDF PN=1 STR(id=7,of==)1 CIDF PN=1 STR(id=7,of=1=24)2

CIDF PN=2 ACK(pid=1,1)1 ACK(pid=2,1)

Path 1: WiFi Path 2: LTE

31

Multipath QUIC Data Transfer

Server via WiFi

Server via LTE

PhoneCIDF PN=1 STR(id=5)1

CIDF PN=1 STR(id=7,of==)1 CIDF PN=1 STR(id=7,of=1=24)2

CIDF PN=2 ACK(pid=1,1)1 ACK(pid=2,1)

Path 1: WiFi Path 2: LTE

Multiple paths ackedon a single path

32

Multipath Mechanisms

● Path management IP1

IP2

IP3

IP4

33

Multipath Mechanisms

● Path management IP1

IP2

IP3

IP4

34

Multipath Mechanisms

● Path management

● Packet scheduling

IP1

IP2

IP3

IP4

10 ms RTT

2= ms RTT

35

Multipath Mechanisms

● Path management

● Packet scheduling

IP1

IP2

IP3

IP4

10 ms RTT

2= ms RTT

36

Multipath Mechanisms

● Path management

● Packet scheduling

IP1

IP2

IP3

IP4

10 ms RTT

2= ms RTT 2= ms RTT

?

37

Multipath Mechanisms

● Path management

● Packet scheduling

IP1

IP2

IP3

IP4

10 ms RTT

2= ms RTT 2= ms RTT

?Duplicate

38

Multipath Mechanisms

● Path management

● Packet scheduling

● Congestion control– Opportunistic Linked Increase Algorithm

IP1

IP2

IP3

IP4

10 ms RTT

2= ms RTT 2= ms RTT

?Duplicate

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

40

Evaluating Bandoith Aggregation

● Doonload of 20 MB fle– Over a single stream– Collect the transfer time

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

42

Evaluating Bandoith Aggregation

● Doonload of 20 MB fle– Over a single stream– Collect the transfer time

● For a loss-free scenario– MPQUIC has 13% speedup compared to MPTCP

2=ms RTT, 2= Mbps

4=ms RTT, 15 Mbps

43

Evaluating Bandoith Aggregation

● Doonload of 20 MB fle– Over a single stream– Collect the transfer time

● For a loss-free scenario– MPQUIC has 13% speedup compared to MPTCP

● But ohat about other topologies?

2=ms RTT, 2= Mbps

4=ms RTT, 15 Mbps

44

Evaluating Bandoidth Aggregation

● Experimental design, WSP algorithm● 2x253 netoork scenarios

– Vary the initial path● Median over 15 runs

Factor Minimum Maximum

Capacity [Mbps] 0.1 100

Round-Trip-Time [ms] 0 50

Queuing Delay [ms] 0 100

Random Loss [%] 0 2.5

45

Large File Doonload – No Loss

QUIC betterTCP better

46

Large File Doonload – No Loss

QUIC betterTCP better

Single-path

47

Large File Doonload – No Loss

48

Large File Doonload – No Loss

MPQUIC better in 85% of cases

49

Large File Doonload – No Loss

MPQUIC better in 85% of cases

Our extracted scenario

50

Large File Doonload – No Loss

MPQUIC better in 85% of cases

Our extracted scenario

Path 1: 49.4 ms RTT, 18.9= Mbps, 82 ms queing delayPath 2: 1=.6 ms RTT, =.43 Mbps, 11 ms queuing delay

Path 1: 27.2 ms RTT, =.14 Mbps, 34 ms queuing delayPath 2: 46.4 ms RTT, 49.72 Mbps, 47 ms queuing delay

51

Large File Doonload – Losses

52

Large File Doonload – Losses

QUIC copes better with

losses

53

Additional Results (see paper)

● QUIC benefts more of Multipath than TCP● Bandoidth aggregation in high BDP

– MPQUIC still better performs than MPTCP● Short fle transfers

– (MP)QUIC better thanks to its low latency handshake● Netoork handover

– MPQUIC can be very efcient– New frame to communicate path state

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

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

● https://itunes.apple.com/fr/app/quictester/id1322=19644?mt=8

– Feel free to provide feedback :-)

QUICTester

56

Thanks!

multipath-quic.org