[Sis-dtn] ION and in-order delivery

Sat Feb 17 05:22:32 UTC 2024

Yes! ION's DTPC is a good reference for a gateway service between CL and BP application as a glue for a reliable service interface among them.
This function would be quite useful and it is analogous to OS (operating system that supports file system...).

A concept of DTN OS would be interesting. If realized, I think many potential BP applications will be beneficiaries of this, including CFDP Class 1 for example.

          DTN OS                    BP Applications
+---------------------+   +----------------------+
  CL + in-order storage         CFDP, ......

Cheol
--------- 원본 메일 ---------

보낸사람 : "Torgerson, J. Leigh (US 332C)" <jordan.l.torgerson at jpl.nasa.gov>
받는사람 : "구철회" <chkoo at kari.re.kr>, Felix Flentge <Felix.Flentge at esa.int>, Keith Scott <keithlscott at gmail.com>
참조 : "sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
받은날짜 : 2024-02-17 (토) 02:02:14
제목 : Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Sis-dtn] ION and in-order delivery

 Take a look at IONs DTPC. For uses where in-order delivery is more important than adding latency to insure in-order delivery..   Leigh   From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of 구철회 via SIS-DTN <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
 Reply-To: 구철회 <chkoo at kari.re.kr>
 Date: Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 11:53 PM
 To: Felix Flentge <Felix.Flentge at esa.int>, Keith Scott <keithlscott at gmail.com>
 Cc: "sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
 Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Sis-dtn] ION and in-order delivery   Great! I understand the context.   The phrase "All other things being equal" appears to mean "If one is not prioritized," if I understand it correctly. If an application requires somewhat ordered bundles for its convenience, that function would be quite interesting. However, considering how a bundle can be large, it could be challengeable in terms of memory usage.   (Ordered) FIFO delivery can be burden at CL since ordering is not trivial workload, especially considering long delay and large bundle; it is supposed to be a BP application’s responsibility I think.   I see this function as akin to defragmentation for fragmented bundles in memory/storage/db. Perhaps a third-party tool or layer designed specifically for this purpose and positioned between the CL and BP layers would be useful if a BP application finds it burdensome.   Best, Cheol   From: Felix Flentge <Felix.Flentge at esa.int> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 4:18 PM
 To: Keith Scott <keithlscott at gmail.com>; 구철회 <chkoo at kari.re.kr>
 Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
 Subject: RE: [Sis-dtn] ION and in-order delivery   I assume that we will need to formulate this as a node (the ‘All other things being equal’ seems to vague for a SHOULD requirement).   We could have something like: All other things being equal, it is expected that bundles are forwarded in FIFO + some explanation what ‘things not being equal’ could be (policy decisions, routing decisions, information from extension blocks, …) + some explanation that even forwarding in a certain order does not necessarily lead to receiving in that order (not even at the next hop but for sure not to the destination).   Regards, Felix   From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Keith Scott via SIS-DTN
 Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 8:11 AM
 To: 구철회 <chkoo at kari.re.kr>
 Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
 Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] ION and in-order delivery   Carlo: yeah, it's a very simple scenario; I took an existing test and plotted bundle sequence number against receive order.   Cheol + Carlo: yes, I believe the misordering behavior is entirely allowed by the sentiment and letter of and specification.  The way I understand BP, the service provided by BP is similar to that provided by IP:   - Delivery of (bundles / datagrams) to the destination (name / address)   In particular, in both BP and IP, (bundles / datagrams) may be lost, duplicated, delayed, and/or misordered during delivery.     Context ======= Sorry I didn't provide context for the first message.  We were discussing in the SIS-DTN telecon implementations that might want to impose a requirement along the lines of:       "All other things being equal, a bundle node should forward bundles in FIFO order."   That's not a requirement in any of the BP specs, but in general it's probably beneficial to applications if things don't arrive too much out of order if they don't have to.  Really this stems from folks who want to be able to:     - In bpv6, set timers like custodial retransmission timers or timers associated with DTPC, etc.     - Do something intelligent with application-layer timers related to lost chunks of a stream   I think the above guidance to implementers is probably good, though there's (IMHO) a world of complexity hiding under "All other things being equal", especially when we consider QoS and the group's desire to be able to dynamically modify QoS treatments of bundles via policy.       --keith   On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 1:40 AM 구철회 <chkoo at kari.re.kr> wrote: Hi, Keith.
 I think that's the normal operational behavior in LTP and TCPCL even in the absence of packet loss during connection because there are discontinuity events between A-B and B-C.
 When a discontinuity event occurs during a transaction of a LTP session, the LTP session could possibly not be ended successfully and may pause to await the Report segment from the receiving entity. Upon reconnecting, the affected LTP session must resume interrupted session processing (e.g., RS-DS retransmit-RS-RAS), while other LTP sessions can continue smoothly.
 Considering that an LTP session typically holds a bundle, in this scenario, out-of-order bundle delivery can occur even without packet loss. *NOTE* Discontinuity effectively simulates packet loss. TCPCL just acts like LTPCL. I think you could check it in a wireshark captured packet by seeing a Report segment.
 In your scenario, discontinuity events occurred 8 times (4 times for A-B, 4 times for B-C). I can observe 8 times of bundle arrival fluctuation events in the figure.
 Maybe there could be other issues originating this phenomenon, but above is my thought. HTH.
 Best,
 Cheol
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Message: 1
 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:59:24 +0100
 From: Keith Scott <keithlscott at gmail.com>
 To: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
 Subject: [Sis-dtn] ION and in-order delivery
 Message-ID:
         <CAHdkBBmXz6sQrY50p6Ob3ThO005132Ph9KZOiSgW+=C-8J5Y0w at mail.gmail.com>
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
 I ran a quick test with a 3-node ION network A-B-C where for the first minute A is connected to B (via LTP) and B is connected to C (via TCP).
 After that the topology repeats every two minutes; during the first minute A is connected to B and during the second B is connected to C.  At t=540s full connectivity (A-B and B-C) is restored for one minute.  There is no artificially induced loss in this scenario.  The max aggregation size for LTP was 100kbytes and the max aggregation time was 1s, e.g.:
 *    a span 2 10 10 64000 100000 1 'udplso 10.44.3.2:1113
 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=ce37f0ae-91ac9aa6-ce328120-ac1f6bdccbcc-797d3695053eff4c&q=1&e=3ae2454f-c7be-47fb-9265-5a883d8026a6&u=http%3A%2F%2F10.44.3.2%3A1113%2F> 1000000'*
 [image: image.png]
 I ran bping (will do a unidirectional test later).  The chart below shows the received bping sequence number as a function of the order in which bpings were received.
 [image: image.png]
 So yeah, it looks like ION will occasionally misorder bundles.  I think that's not ideal, but I strongly believe that it is compliant with both the spec and the intent of the service (bundle delivery) BP purports to provide.  (And most bundles were in order, which is a feat considering that between 60 and 540s the network is never end-to-end connected).
     --keith
 -------------- next part --------------
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=f133e8de-aea882d6-f1369950-ac1f6bdccbcc-aa39b8d587d0d7dd&q=1&e=3ae2454f-c7be-47fb-9265-5a883d8026a6&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fpipermail%2Fsis-dtn%2Fattachments%2F20240215%2F70f735de%2Fattachment.htm>
 -------------- next part --------------
 A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
 Name: image.png
 Type: image/png
 Size: 48080 bytes
 Desc: not available
 URL: <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=5a238e22-05b8e42a-5a26ffac-ac1f6bdccbcc-ee06a4af1da35812&q=1&e=3ae2454f-c7be-47fb-9265-5a883d8026a6&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fpipermail%2Fsis-dtn%2Fattachments%2F20240215%2F70f735de%2Fattachment.png>
 -------------- next part --------------
 A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
 Name: image.png
 Type: image/png
 Size: 79905 bytes
 Desc: not available
 URL: <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=c83cc342-97a7a94a-c839b2cc-ac1f6bdccbcc-17dd8d887bfde0f4&q=1&e=3ae2454f-c7be-47fb-9265-5a883d8026a6&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fpipermail%2Fsis-dtn%2Fattachments%2F20240215%2F70f735de%2Fattachment-0001.png>
 ------------------------------
 Subject: Digest Footer
 _______________________________________________
 SIS-DTN mailing list
 SIS-DTN at mailman.ccsds.org
 https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=ac25f3ab-f3be99a3-ac208225-ac1f6bdccbcc-2472f80e5d5dbacd&q=1&e=3ae2454f-c7be-47fb-9265-5a883d8026a6&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn
 ------------------------------
 End of SIS-DTN Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
 *************************************** This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20240217/0f6bde29/attachment-0001.htm>