diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content/en')
| -rw-r--r-- | content/en/blog/news/20200502-frcp.md | 236 |
1 files changed, 236 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/content/en/blog/news/20200502-frcp.md b/content/en/blog/news/20200502-frcp.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f677730 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/en/blog/news/20200502-frcp.md @@ -0,0 +1,236 @@ +--- +date: 2020-02-16 +title: "Flow and Retransmission Control Protocol (FRCP) implementation" +linkTitle: "Flow and Retransmission Control Protocol (FRCP)" +description: "A quick demo of FRCP" +author: Dimitri Staessens +--- + +With the longer weekend I had some fun implementing (parts of) the +[Flow and Retransmission Control Protocol (FRCP)](/docs/concepts/protocols/#flow-and-retransmission-control-protocol-frcp) +to the point that it's stable enough to bring you a very quick demo of it. + +FRCP is the Ouroboros alternative to TCP / QUIC / LLC. It assures +delivery of packets when the network itself isn't very reliable. + +The setup is simple: we run Ouroboros over the Ethernet loopback +adapter _lo_, +``` +systemctl restart ouroboros +irm i b t eth-dix l dix n dix dev lo +``` +to which we add some impairment +[_qdisc_](http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/tc-netem.8.html): + +``` +$ sudo tc qdisc add dev lo root netem loss 8% duplicate 3% reorder 10% delay 1 +``` + +This causes the link to lose, duplicate and reorder packets. + +We can use the oping tool to uses different [QoS +specs](https://ouroboros.rocks/cgit/ouroboros/tree/include/ouroboros/qos.h) +and watch the behaviour. Quality-of-Service (QoS) specs are a +technology-agnostic way to request a network service (current +status - not finalized yet). I'll also capture tcpdump output. + +We start an oping server and tell Ouroboros for it to listen to the _name_ "oping": +``` +#bind the program oping to the name oping +irm b prog oping n oping +#register the name oping in the Ethernet layer that is attached to the loopback +irm n r oping l dix +#run the oping server +oping -l +``` + +We'll now send 20 pings. If you try this, it can be that the flow +allocation fails, due to the loss of a flow allocation packet (a bit +similar to TCP losing the first SYN). The oping client currently +doesn't retry flow allocation. The default payload for oping is 64 +bytes (of zeros); oping waits 2 seconds for all packets it has +sent. It doesn't detect duplicates. + +Let's first look at the _raw_ QoS cube. That's like best-effort +UDP/IP. In Ouroboros, however, it doesn't require a packet header at +all. + +First, the output of the client using a _raw_ QoS cube: +``` +$ oping -n oping -c 20 -i 200ms -q raw +Pinging oping with 64 bytes of data (20 packets): + +64 bytes from oping: seq=0 time=0.880 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=1 time=0.742 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=4 time=1.303 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=6 time=0.739 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=6 time=0.771 ms [out-of-order] +64 bytes from oping: seq=6 time=0.789 ms [out-of-order] +64 bytes from oping: seq=7 time=0.717 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=8 time=0.759 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=9 time=0.716 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=10 time=0.729 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=11 time=0.720 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=12 time=0.718 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=13 time=0.722 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=14 time=0.700 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=16 time=0.670 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=17 time=0.712 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=18 time=0.716 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=19 time=0.674 ms +Server timed out. + +--- oping ping statistics --- +20 packets transmitted, 18 received, 2 out-of-order, 10% packet loss, time: 6004.273 ms +rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.670/0.765/1.303/0.142 ms +``` + +The _netem_ did a good job of jumbling up the traffic! There were a +couple out-of-order, duplicates, and quite some packets lost. + +Let's dig into an Ethernet frame captured from the "wire". The most +interesting thing its small total size: 82 bytes. + +``` +13:37:25.875092 00:00:00:00:00:00 (oui Ethernet) > 00:00:00:00:00:00 (oui Ethernet), ethertype Unknown (0xa000), length 82: + 0x0000: 0042 0040 0000 0001 0000 0011 e90c 0000 .B.@............ + 0x0010: 0000 0000 203f 350f 0000 0000 0000 0000 .....?5......... + 0x0020: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................ + 0x0030: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................ + 0x0040: 0000 0000 +``` + +The first 12 bytes are the two MAC addresses (all zeros), then 2 bytes +for the "Ethertype" (the default for an Ouroboros layer is 0xa000, so +you can create more layers and seperate them by Ethertype[^1]. The +Ethernet Payload is thus 68 bytes. The Ouroboros _ipcpd-eth-dix_ adds +and extra header of 4 bytes with 2 extra "fields". The first field we +needed to take over from our [Data +Transfer](/docs/concepts/protocols/) protocol: the Endpoint Identifier +that identifies the flow. The _ipcpd-eth-dix_ has two endpoints, one +for the client and one for the server. 0x0042 (66) is the destination +EID of the server, 0x0043 (67) is the destination EID of the client. +The second field is the _length_ of the payload in octets, 0x0040 = +64. This is needed because Ethernet II has a minimum frame size of 64 +bytes and pads smaller frames (called _runt frames_)[^2]. The +remaining 64 bytes are the oping payload, giving us an 82 byte packet. + +That's it for the raw QoS. The next one is _voice_. A voice service +usually requires packets to be delivered with little delay and jitter +(i.e. ASAP). Out-of-order packets are rejected since they cause +artifacts in the audio output. The voice QoS will enable FRCP, because +it needs to track sequence numbers. + +``` +$ oping -n oping -c 20 -i 200ms -q voice +Pinging oping with 64 bytes of data (20 packets): + +64 bytes from oping: seq=0 time=0.860 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=2 time=0.704 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=3 time=0.721 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=4 time=0.706 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=5 time=0.721 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=6 time=0.710 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=7 time=0.721 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=8 time=0.691 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=10 time=0.691 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=12 time=0.702 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=13 time=0.730 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=14 time=0.716 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=15 time=0.725 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=16 time=0.709 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=17 time=0.703 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=18 time=0.693 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=19 time=0.666 ms +Server timed out. + +--- oping ping statistics --- +20 packets transmitted, 17 received, 0 out-of-order, 15% packet loss, time: 6004.243 ms +rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.666/0.716/0.860/0.040 ms +``` + +As you can see, packets are delivered in-order, and some packets are +missing. Nothing fancy. Let's look at a data packet: + +``` +14:06:05.607699 00:00:00:00:00:00 (oui Ethernet) > 00:00:00:00:00:00 (oui Ethernet), ethertype Unknown (0xa000), length 94: + 0x0000: 0045 004c 0100 0000 eb1e 73ad 0000 0000 .E.L......s..... + 0x0010: 0000 0000 0000 0012 a013 0000 0000 0000 ................ + 0x0020: 705c e53a 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 p\.:............ + 0x0030: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................ + 0x0040: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................ + +``` + +The same 18-byte header is present. The flow endpoint ID is a +different one, and the length is also different. The packet is 94 +bytes, the payload length for the _ipcp-eth_dix_ is 0x004c = 76 +octets. So the FRCP header adds 12 bytes, the total overhead is 30 +bytes. Maybe a bit more detail on the FRCP header contents (more depth +is available the protocol documentation). The first 2 bytes are the +FLAGS (0x0100). There are only 7 flags, it's 16 bits for memory +alignment. This packet only has the DATA bit set. Then follows the +flow control window, which is 0 (not implemented yet). Then we have a +4 byte sequence number (eb1e 73ae = 3944641454)[^3] and a 4 byte ACK +number, which is 0. The remaining 64 bytes are the oping payload. + +Next, the data QoS: + +``` +$ oping -n oping -c 20 -i 200ms -q data +Pinging oping with 64 bytes of data (20 packets): + +64 bytes from oping: seq=0 time=0.932 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=1 time=0.701 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=2 time=200.949 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=3 time=0.817 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=4 time=0.753 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=5 time=0.730 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=6 time=0.726 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=7 time=0.887 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=8 time=0.878 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=9 time=0.883 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=10 time=0.865 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=11 time=401.192 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=12 time=201.047 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=13 time=0.872 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=14 time=0.966 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=15 time=0.856 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=16 time=0.849 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=17 time=0.843 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=18 time=0.797 ms +64 bytes from oping: seq=19 time=0.728 ms + +--- oping ping statistics --- +20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0 out-of-order, 0% packet loss, time: 4004.491 ms +rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.701/40.864/401.192/104.723 ms +``` + +With the data spec, we have no packet loss, but some packets have been +retransmitted (hence the higher latency). The reason for the very high +latency is that the current implementation only ACKs on data packets, +this will be fixed soon. + +Looking at an Ethernet frame, it's again 94 bytes: + +``` +14:35:42.612066 00:00:00:00:00:00 (oui Ethernet) > 00:00:00:00:00:00 (oui Ethernet), ethertype Unknown (0xa000), length 94: + 0x0000: 0044 004c 0700 0000 81b8 0259 e2f3 eb59 .D.L.......Y...Y + 0x0010: 0000 0000 0000 0012 911a 0000 0000 0000 ................ + 0x0020: 86b3 273b 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ..';............ + 0x0030: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................ + 0x0040: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................ + +``` + +The main difference is that it has 2 flags set (DATA + ACK), and it +thus contains both a sequence number (81b8 0259) and an +acknowledgement (e2f3 eb59). + +That's about it for now. More to come soon. + +Dimitri + +[^1]: Don't you love standards? One of the key design objectives for Ouroboros is exactly to avoid such shenanigans. Modify/abuse a header and Ouroboros should reject it because it _cannot work_, not because some standard says one shouldn't do it. +[^2]: Lesser known fact: Gigabit Ethernet has a 512 byte minimum frame size; but _carrier extension_ handles this transparently. +[^3]: As you have figured out, the loopback is not in _network byte order_.
\ No newline at end of file |