QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload...
Transcript of QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload...
![Page 1: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s role as a transport mechanism for IP
video
![Page 2: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Contents
• Introduction
• Use of IP protocols
• Payload type
• IP Transport and QUIC
• Assessments of QUICs performance
• Conclusions
I
P
I
Q
C
D
I
This is a candidate technology which will influence the future of media distribution and I’ll discuss
• How networks and payloads influence the viewing experience • Key performance criteria and strategies • What QUIC is and why it is worthy of consideration.
![Page 3: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Pe
ta B
yte
s p
er
Mo
nth
Year
Worldwide Internet Traffic Usage
Fixed
Mobile
Internet video
Web, email, and data
Online gaming
File sharing
Consumer Internet traffic
Fixed 90%
Mobile 10%
2016 Fixed 79%
Mobile 21%
2021
Traffic 84% Consumer and 16% Business Source: Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2016–2021 June 6, 2017
D
![Page 4: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
How do we assess the quality of the user’s experience
• Availability: the number of times the video playback starts successfully
• Abandonment Rate: percentage of viewers dropping off due to poor quality
• Start-up time: time between play button click and playback start
• Re-buffering : number of times and duration of interruptions due to re-buffering
• Bit rate: average bits per second of video playback.
D
![Page 5: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Accelerating Bandwidth Requirements
Type Screen Resolution (Pixels)
FPS Raw Bandwidth
With compression
SD 852 x 480 25 200M 2-3M (DVB-T)
HD 1280x470 25 or 50 622M 6-10M
4K 3840x 1080 100 12G 15-25M HEVC
8K 7860 x 4329 120 24G 100M
P
Data sources: Linge,N., Murphy, L. and Darlington,W., Realising 4K: The migration to Ultra High Definition TV, Journal of the Institute of Telecommunications Professionals , 2014,8(3), pp10-13 Ilcev, D, Designing a new UHD TV standard, Journal of the Institute of Telecommunications Professionals , 2014,8(3), pp 17-20.
D
![Page 6: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Sender – sends files according to requested quality as HTTP2 file transfer.
Encoding
Encoding and Adaptive Bit Rate Native Frame
I Frame
Native Frame Native Frame
P-Frame
P-Frame
P-Frame
Group of Frames
Receiver – identifies network performance and requests quality based on that
Encoder/ Decoder produces several streams to differing qualities. The goal is to send the highest quality stream commensurate with network performance
P
![Page 7: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Linking this with the IP Stack
• HTML – 5 – Development of HTML improved to
support multimedia. – Provides interface to ABR software
• HTTP – 2 (Responsibilities taken by QUIC) – Allows multiplexing of messages over a
single connection – Compression of protocol headers – Most client implementations use
encryption (in conjunction with TLS)
P
HTML 5
HTTP 2.0 TLS 1.2
TCP
IP
Data Link
Physical Network
Display Application
![Page 8: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Buffering and Communications in IP
Server IP Network
TCP Transmission
TCP Socket Playout Buffer Decoding Buffer
Display at frame refresh rate
Video Client
Read Read
P
![Page 9: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Video stacks
HTML 5
HTTP 2.0
TLS 1.2
TCP
IP
Physical Network
Streaming Host
HTML 5
HTTP 2.0 shim
QUIC
UDP
IP
Physical Network
Streaming Host
User perceived latency
Q
Application Space
System Space
Application Space
System Space
I
TCP/HTTP 2.0 Stack QUIC Stack
![Page 10: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
QUIC
• Invented by Google in 2012, going through IETF homologation now.
• Between 2.6 and 9.1% of Internet traffic • Design goals
– Deployable in user space, allowing easier modification. – Low latency secure connection establishment – faster
setup and authentication. – Streams and multiplexing, removing the head of line
blocking associated with TCP. – Better loss recovery and flexible congestion control, uses
unique packet number and receiver timestamp – Ensure that there were no dependencies on software
changes within the providers network. – Better management of NAT sessions and transfers
between networks.
Q I
![Page 11: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
HTTP/TCP and Performance 1990
• Single static page • 1 resource • 1 Domain
Today
• 1200 KB web page • 80 resources • 30 domains
HTTP 1.1 • One TCP connection per
HTTP session • Max 6 TCP sessions per
browser, more than this impairs performance.
• TCP pipelining allows multiple requests to be sent sequentially, but these have to be responded to in the same order as received. Creates Head of Line Blocking
SPDY/ HTTP-2
• Multiple HTTP sessions per connection.
• Removes the HTTP 1.1 HoL blocking.
• TCP congestion impacts all streams creating a new head of line blocking.
QUIC
• Streams run independently across protocol.
• Packet loss only impacts streams contributing to the lost packet
• Removed head of line blocking
I
![Page 12: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Performance gains
• Reduced overhead in setting up transport sessions and in establishing security associations by combining handshake and caching context.
• Removal of Head of Line Blocking by only retransmitting data associated with the streams affected. Audio and video sent over two streams within a single QUIC connection.
• Improve transmission error handling: – Distinguish between acknowledgement of original packet and retransmission,
combine unique packet number and stream offset. – Use of selective retransmission mechanisms. – Simple Forward Error Correction tried and removed in 2016 – Better estimation of network RTT characteristics.
• Better congestion and flow control: – Use of HTTP 2 like, credit based, flow control mechanisms and prioritisation
to reduce packet loss due to bursty traffic streams. Windowing mechanisms for connection and stream flow control.
– Improved fast transmit mechanism. – Tested using the same Linux Cubic congestion control mechanism, optimised
for high bandwidth with high latency networks
Q I
![Page 13: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Performance – comparison with TCP • Langley et al (Google) – percentage improvement
– They find server cpu utilisation doubles (reduced from 3.5) due to QUIC running in user space.
• Kakhki et al (North-Eastern/Purdue) – Performance depends on network and device, so improvements are variable. – QUIC outperforms TCP under loss in harsh environments due to improved loss recovery and
lack of head of line blocking. – The differences are less marked for mobile devices where resources are more scarce. – They identify performance issues related to window size, re-ordered packets and multiplexing
a large number of objects. – QUIC however consumes more bandwidth and starves other TCP applications
• Carlucci et al (Politecnico di Bari) – Similar results, includes HTTP1 in mix – FEC reduces QUIC throughput – QUIC starves TCP under congestion.
• Since these measurements were taken Google have permitted a higher maximum contention window setting, which further improves performance.
Mean 99 percentile
Search latency Computer 8.0 % 16.7 %
Mobile device 3.6 % 14.3 %
Video latency Computer 8.0 % 10.6 %
Mobile device 5.3 % 7.5 %
Video re-buffering Computer 18.0 % 18.5 %
Mobile device 15.3 % 8.7 %
Q
![Page 14: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
QUIC in the wild – Ruth et al
186.77 K IPs August 2016
617.59 K IPs October 2017
End Points
Configured Traffic
Google -53.53%
(330.62K)
Google 98.1%
Akamai 40.71%
251.43K)
Akamai 0.1%
Traffic Flows
% QUIC % Google
% Akamai
MAWI 6.70%
ISP 7.80% 98.10% 0.10%
Mobile ISP 9.10% 96.90% 0.10%
IXP 2.60% 33.10% 59.90%
Q
QUIC is a low proportion of overall Internet traffic
![Page 15: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Security
• The level of encryption used on the Internet has risen from 15% in Jan 2012 to 85% in Jan 2016.
• Intrinsic in the protocol, headers are authenticated and most data and signalling is encrypted.
• Lychev et al: – Confirm soundness of QUIC security design – Accelerating connection establishment opens up attack vectors that could
impact performance. – They identify and implement four threats that disrupt the handshake process
and one denial of service attack. These are being assessed by Google.
• Security v monitoring impacts some Enterprises • Can not currently be used for PCI since TLS 1.3 support is incorporated at
present. • TLS 1.3 introduction is imminent (TLS 1.3 standard ratified in March 2018)
Q
![Page 16: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Conclusions
• For streaming standardisation around IP based protocols makes sense. • QUIC has a number of merits, but how significant are they? Depends on
network quality. • IETF drafts since 2012, slow adoption is normal as testing shakes out. User
space implementation may challenge mobile devices. • Some design decisions are to be finalised. • Less than 10% of current web traffic • Encryption and authentication mean no need to update middle boxes, so
network upgrades are not required. • Only implemented in Chrome and Opera, which have 60% of the browser
market (https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php) • Used extensively on Google’s platform and Google is number one in both
search and video. Akamai are a powerful ally. • Under consideration by 3GPP for use on 5 G Packet Core.
C
![Page 17: QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections)’s€¦ · •Introduction •Use of IP protocols •Payload type •IP Transport and QUIC •Assessments of QUICs performance •Conclusions](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022050607/5fae9fa94e5ea831c3013112/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
References • Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2016–2021 June 6, 2017 • Linge,N., Murphy, L. and Darlington,W., Realising 4K: The migration to Ultra High Definition TV, Journal of the
Institute of Telecommunications Professionals , 2014,8(3), pp10-13 • Ilcev, D, Designing a new UHD TV standard, Journal of the Institute of Telecommunications Professionals ,
2014,8(3), pp 17-20. • Metzger, F. Rafetseder, A., Stezenbach, D. and Tutschku K. Taking a Analysis of Web-based Video Delivery,
Proceedings of 50th FITCE Congress, 2011, pp 170-175 • Batalla, J.M., Krawiec, P., Beben, A., Wisniewski, P and Chydzinski, A.,Adaptive Video Streaming: Rate and Buffer
on the Track of Minimum Rebuffering,, IEEE Journal On Selected Areas In Communications, Vol. 34, No. 8, August 2016, pp 2154-2167.
• Carlucci, G., De Cicco, L., and Mascolo, S. Http over udp: An experimental investigation of quic. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2015), SAC ’15, ACM, pp. 609–614.
• Langley, A., Riddoch, A., Wilk, A., Vicente, A., Krasic, C., Zhang, D., Yang, F. , Kouranov, F., Swett, I., Iyengar, J., Bailey, J., Dorfman, J., Roskind, J., Kulik, J., Westin, P., Tenneti, R., Shade, R., Hamilton, R., Vasiliev, V. Chang, W., and Shi, Z., The QUIC Transport Protocol: Design and Internet-Scale Deployment, SIGCOMM ’17, August 21-25, Proceedings of the conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, pp183-196
• Kakhki, A.M, Jero, S., Choffnes, D., Nita-Rotaru, C. and Mislove, A., Long Look at QUIC - An Approach for Rigorous Evaluation of Rapidly Evolving Transport Protocols, IMC’17, Porceings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference, pp 290-303
• Rüth, J. , Poese, I,. Dietzel, C. and ‘Hohlfeld, O., A First Look at QUIC in the Wild, arXiv:1801.05168v1 [cs.NI] 16 Jan 2018
• Lychev, R., Jero, S., Boldyrevaz, A. and Nita-Rotarux, C., How Secure and Quick is QUIC? Provable Security and Performance Analyses, IEEE Symposium Security and Privacy, 17-21 May 2015, DOI:10:1109/SP 2015, 21, pp 214-231