| Internet-Draft | HPCC++ | February 2024 |
| Miao, et al. | Expires 23 August 2024 | [Page] |
Congestion control (CC) is the key to achieving ultra-low latency, high bandwidth and network stability in high-speed networks. However, the existing high-speed CC schemes have inherent limitations for reaching these goals.¶
In this document, we describe HPCC++ (High Precision Congestion Control), a new high-speed CC mechanism which achieves the three goals simultaneously. HPCC++ leverages inband telemetry to obtain precise link load information and controls traffic precisely. By addressing challenges such as delayed signaling during congestion and overreaction to the congestion signaling using inband and granular telemetry, HPCC++ can quickly converge to utilize all the available bandwidth while avoiding congestion, and can maintain near-zero in-network queues for ultra-low latency. HPCC++ is also fair and easy to deploy in hardware, implementable with commodity NICs and switches.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 August 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The link speed in data center networks has grown from 1Gbps to 100Gbps in the past decade, and this growth is continuing. Ultralow latency and high bandwidth, which are demanded by more and more applications, are two critical requirements in today's and future high-speed networks.¶
Given that traditional software-based network stacks in hosts can no longer sustain the critical latency and bandwidth requirements as described in [Zhu-SIGCOMM2015], offloading network stacks into hardware is an inevitable direction in high-speed networks. As an example, large-scale networks with RDMA (remote direct memory access) often uses hardware-offloading solutions. In some cases, the RDMA networks still face fundamental challenges to reconcile low latency, high bandwidth utilization, and high stability.¶
This document describes a new congestion control mechanism, HPCC++ (Enhanced High Precision Congestion Control), for large-scale, high-speed networks. The key idea behind HPCC++ is to leverage the precise link load information from signaled through inband telemetry to compute accurate flow rate updates. Unlike existing approaches that often require a large number of iterations to find the proper flow rates, HPCC++ requires only one rate update step in most cases. Using precise information from inband telemetry enables HPCC++ to address the limitations in current congestion control schemes. First, HPCC++ senders can quickly ramp up flow rates for high utilization and ramp down flow rates for congestion avoidance. Second, HPCC++ senders can quickly adjust the flow rates to keep each link's output rate slightly lower than the link's capacity, preventing queues from being built-up as well as preserving high link utilization. Finally, since sending rates are computed precisely based on direct measurements at switches, HPCC++ requires merely three independent parameters that are used to tune fairness and efficiency.¶
HPCC++ is an enhanced version of [SIGCOMM-HPCC]. HPCC++ takes into account system constraints and aims to reduce the design overhead and further improves the performance. Detailed specification about HPCC++ can be found at [draft-miao-ccwg-hpcc].¶
This document describes the architecture changes in switches and end-hosts to support the needed tranmission of inband telemetry and its consumption, that imporves the efficiency in handling network congestion.¶
HPCC++ only relies on packets to share information across senders, receivers, and switches. The switch should capture inband telemetry information that includes link load (txBytes, qlen, ts) and link spec (switch_ID, port_ID, B) at the egress port. Note, each switch should record all those information at the single snapshot to achieve a precise link load estimate. Inside a data center, the path length is often no more than 5 hops. The overhead of the inband telemetry padding for HPCC++ is considered to be low.¶
As long the above algorithm is met, HPCC++ is open to a variety of inband telemetry format standards, which are orthogonal to the HPCC++ algorithm. Although this document does not mandate a particular inband telemetry header format or encapsulation, we provide concrete implementation specifications using strandard inband telemetry protocols, including IFA [I-D.ietf-kumar-ippm-ifa], IETF IOAM [RFC9179], and P4.org INT [P4-INT]. In fact, the emerging inband telemetry protocols inform the evolution for a broader range of protocols and network functions, where this document leverages the trend to propose the architecture change to support in-network functions like congestion control with high efficiency.¶
For more details, please refer to IFA [I-D.ietf-kumar-ippm-ifa]¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| lns | deviceID | rsvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Speed | rsvd | rxTimestampSec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| egressPort | ingressPort |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rxTimeStampNs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| residenceTime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| txBytes |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rsvd | Queue Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rsvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 shows the packet format of the INT metadata after UDP and IFA metadata header. The field lns is the local name space and defines the format of the metadata. The field deviceID is a 20-bit field that uniquely identifies the device in the network. The Speed field is an encode field with the following encoding for port speed: 0 - 10G, 1 - 25G, 2 - 40G, 3- 50G, 4 - 100G, 5 - 200G, 6 - 400G. The field cn is the congestion field and denotes if the packet experienced congestion.¶
IOAM is the technology adopted by IETF to be used for in-situ telemetry. For the use of HPCC++ we would discuss the IOAM trace option as part of the IOAM architecture. IOAM trace supports both Pre-allocated and Incremental trace Options, meaning that a node in the network may either write data into an already-allocated space in the packet, or may it add the data as an extenation to the IOAM header, respectively. An IOAM data header has a modular design, where the data types written by a node are determined based on the IOAM trace header instruction list. For the full description of the IOAM header design please refer to IETF IOAM [RFC9179] specification. In order to fulfill the requirements set by the HPCC++ architecture we would suggest to use the below trace types:¶
Note that Transmitted Bytes trace type is defined in [I-D.draft-gafni-ippm-ioam-additional-data-fields] as a suggested extension to [RFC9179].¶
When using the above trace types, the IOAM data header would be constructed as follows:¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop_Lim | node_id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ingress_if_id | egress_if_id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| queue depth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| timestamp fraction |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| tx_bytes |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Node ID (Nth hop) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress Interface ID | Egress Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Queue ID | Queue occupnacy |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Egress timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Egress timestamp (cont'd) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Egress interface Tx utilization |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Node ID (N-1th hop) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Node ID (1st hop) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 shows the per-hop metadata format of the P4.org INT-MD mode (following INT v2.1 spec). Each hop switch along the path adds its Node ID for the sender to be able to track the path and detect a path change event. If so, it throws away the existing status records of the flow and builds up new records. Queue occupancy (24 bits) is the current buffer occupancy of the egress port and queue that the flow is going through. Egress timestamp (8 bytes) is used by HPCC++ algorithm to eventually compute interface utilization. Since P4.org INT reports Egress TX utilization in-band, the Egress timestsamp is not mandatory but optional. HPCC++ algorithm today doesn't require Ingress Interface ID. P4.org INT defines Ingress and Egress Interface IDs as one metadata instruction. We keep the Ingress ID for a future use.¶
This document makes no request of IANA.¶
The authors would like to thank RTGWG members for their valuable review comments and helpful input to this specification.¶
The following individuals have contributed to the implementation and evaluation of the proposed scheme, and therefore have helped to validate and substantially improve this specification: Pedro Y. Segura, Roberto P. Cebrian, Robert Southworth and Md Ashiqur Rahman.¶