One document matched: draft-dawkins-trigtran-linkup-00.txt
TRIGTRAN (BoF) S. Dawkins
Internet-Draft MCSR Labs
Expires: November 20, 2003 May 22, 2003
End-to-end, Implicit "Link-Up" Notification
draft-dawkins-trigtran-linkup-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2003.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The Performance Implications of Link Characteristics [PILC] working
group is recommending an end-to-end implicit notification when an
access link outage ends. This document codifies the "Link Up
Notification" for TCP.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft "Link-Up" Notifications May 2003
1. Introduction
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC793] uses a
retransmission timer to ensure data delivery in the absence of any
feedback from a remote data receiver, and prescribes an "exponential
backoff" for this timer in cases where retransmissions are also
unacknowledged. This timer can grow to a very large value (often
capped at 64 seconds, but even this limit isn't required by
standards-track specifications).
This exponential backoff is necessary to prevent sustained congestion
(if loss occurs due to congestion), but may provide an unnecessarily
unpleasant user experience (if the loss occurs due to link outages in
a wireless environment).
The Performance Implications of Link Characteristics [PILC] working
group is recommending an end-to-end implicit notification when an
access link outage ends [LINK, section 8.2]. The goal is to allow
sending transports to retransmit in a timely fashion without
modifying the exponential backoff mechanism. This notification was
well-supported in the IETF 56 TRIGTRAN BoF [TRIGTRAN56].
This note describes a method of "short-circuiting" a "backed-off"
retransmission timer in a case where a TCP detects that a local
interface has become operational, so that a sender is notified that
another retransmission attempt may be appropriate. The TCP using the
interface sends a "Link Up Notification" (or "LUN") to its peer.
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft "Link-Up" Notifications May 2003
2. Problem Statement
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC793] uses a
retransmission timer to ensure data delivery in the absence of any
feedback from a remote data receiver. This timer, called the
retransmission timeout (RTO), is calculated using an algorithm
specified in [RFC2988].
When an RTO occurs, the sender retransmits an unacknowledged segment.
If this retransmitted segment is also unacknowledged, the sender
waits twice as long before attempting an additional retransmission,
and this effect is cumulative.
The initial value of RTO is 3 seconds, and subsequent values during
normal operation approach a smoothed average of the RTT (plus a
factor based on the variance in RTT), with a lower bound of 1 second.
When a segment is lost, and cannot be recovered by other means (Fast
Retransmit), the RTO used to trigger the first retransmission attempt
will be as short as is "reasonable" - the RTO is calculated based on
the measured RTT, so the RTO will happen with a reasonable
expectation that no acknowledgement for data sent before RTO will be
received after RTO. This might be characterized as "as soon as
possible, but no sooner".
All well and good, if the retransmitted segment is acknowledged. If
it is not acknowledged, the TCP will wait twice as long before
retransmitting again, and will continue to double the RTO interval
each time its attempt to retransmit fails.
This behavior is conservative, ensuring that sending TCPs "back off"
in the presence of path congestion. This desirable property comes at
a price - current RTO values quickly increase into the 10s of seconds
between retransmission attempts, a painfully slow interval if a human
being is "in the loop". BSD-based TCPs finally "cap" the maximum RTO
value at 64 seconds, but this "cap" is not required [RFC2988] -
conformant TCPs are allowed to continue to increase RTO into multiple
minutes between retransmission attempts.
If an RTO has happened because of path congestion, high and rising
RTO-based periods of "silence" are necessary to ensure that path
congestion does not remain, or even increase, at a time when the
sending TCP is not receiving any feedback from the receiver.
If an RTO has happened because of an access link failure, an
all-too-common situation when the access link is a wireless link, and
the access link becomes available again, the unexpired portion of the
full RTO period is not required to prevent sustained congestion,
because no congestion was occurring. However, today's sending TCPs
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft "Link-Up" Notifications May 2003
cannot know this is the case, must make the conservative assumption
that lost packets are being lost due to congestion, and have no
indication that the RTO is caused by an access link failure.
It is axiomatic that a "human in the loop" will abandon the operation
leading to multiple minutes of inactivity and "try again" - for
instance, pressing the "stop" and "reload" buttons on an HTTP
browser. These operations often reset or abandon existing TCP
connections, causing TCPs to discard learned path characteristics,
and add additional packets (SYN/SYN-ACK on new connections, etc.) If
it's possible to prevent this, it's desirable to do so.
2.1 A Historical Note: "Kicking" TCP
The IETF PILC Working group is recommending retransmission of packets
on an interface that has returned to operational status, in [LINK].
[LINK] documents informal practice, but additional details are
required for standards-track TCPs.
"Kicking TCP" takes its name from Phil Karn's posting to the PILC
mailing list, proposing that routers driving subnetworks subject to
lengthy outages "try to hold onto the last IP packet of each flow
when a link goes down and forward it to its destination when the link
comes back up". [LINKNOTE].
Ideally, a "Link Up Notification" (or "LUN") would be accomplished
using an ICMP message, but in today's Internet, an end-to-end TCP
packet for an existing connection is more likely to "arrive" at its
destination across border gateways, firewalls, and NATs. "Kicking
TCP" takes advantage of this - the LUN is exactly a packet that has
already been transmitted on an existing connection path.
This document takes "Kicking TCP" as a starting point. It extends
"Kicking TCP" by adding sender-side behavior for
apparently-duplicated packets received on an RTOed TCP connection.
2.2 Applicability Statement
Hosts supporting TCP-based applications over subnetwork interfaces
subject to multi-second outages MAY perform the actions described in
Section 3. These actions are more attractive for "human-in-the-loop"
applications, but are acceptable for any TCP-based application.
All hosts supporting TCP-based applications SHOULD perform the
actions described in Section 4.
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft "Link-Up" Notifications May 2003
3. When a Local Interface Returns to "UP"
If a host contains a local interface that is subject to frequent and
lengthy outages, the host subnetwork implementation MAY retain a copy
of "the last" packet transmitted on each TCP connection.
When the subnetwork implementation detects that a local interface has
returned to "UP" status, the subnetwork implementation MAY retransmit
the last packet stored for each TCP connection.
3.1 Layering Violation Tradeoffs
This proposal casually acts like subnetwork implementations can track
TCP connections between two end hosts. This is a layering violation.
If an implementation finds it more convenient to provide "local link
up" indications to its own TCP, LUN functionality can be implemented
in the TCP/IP stack.
Not all subnetwork implementations are able to distinguish between
TCP connections. In this case, the subnetwork may chose to store one
packet per destination host.
TCP source and destination port numbers will be masked when the host
is using IPSEC Encapsulating Secure Payload [ESP], because this
cryptographic privacy mechanism obscures these fields from the TCP/IP
"pseudo header". In these cases, the subnetwork may also choose to
store one packet per destination host.
If a host is storing one packet per destination host, it should be
the most recently transmitted packet, to maximize the probability
that a LUN will restart an active TCP connection.
3.2 Stopping the Babbling
LUNs are intended as an end-to-end implicit notification to a peer
TCP, not a reliable signal. If a LUN is also lost due to a new link
outage, no additional LUNs will take place unless the local interface
"cycles" again.
Some subnetwork technologies can cycle between operational and
non-operational status very rapidly. To prevent "LUN storms", hosts
MUST wait at least one second (the minimum RTO value) after an
interface becomes operational before sending a LUN.
Modified hosts MUST not send LUNs more frequently than once every
three seconds. This restriction matches the RTO period for a new TCP
connection.
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft "Link-Up" Notifications May 2003
4. When an RTOed TCP Sender Receives a LUN
The LUN described in Section 3 will contain an acknowledgement
sequence number, if the TCP connection has advanced to the
ESTABLISHED state. There are several possibilities (using
[RFC793]-style notation):
1. SND.NXT < SEG.ACK - in this case, the receiver has retransmitted
an acknowledgement for a segment that hasn't been sent yet.
2. SND.UNA < SEG.ACK <= SND.NXT - in this case, the receiver has
retransmitted a "new" ACK that the sender has not seen. The TCP
would process this segment normally - it would remove the
acknowledged segments from the retransmission queue and perform
slow start (since the connection is already in RTO).
3. SEG.ACK <= SND.UNA - in this case, the receiver has retransmitted
a "duplicate" ACK that the sender has seen previously. Normally,
this segment would be ignored (as having been duplicated or
reordered by the IP network). This memo adds the following TCP
mechanism: for a connection in RETRANSMISSION-WAIT, the sending
TCP SHOULD perform slow start.
OPEN ISSUE: should we tighten the criteria for a "duplicated ACK", so
that we only trigger on a LUN for the "most recent" ACK transmitted?
(perhaps SEG.ACK - SND.UNA <= PMTU? Is this doable in most TCP
implementations?)
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft "Link-Up" Notifications May 2003
5. Security Considerations
This memo describes a (small) change in TCP behavior.
The procedures defined in this memo will cause sending hosts to
retransmit one packet per RTOed connection before RTO timers would
have expired (when the sending host would have retransmitted one
packet per connection anyway).
The procedures defined in this memo may cause a TCP to "give up" on
an RTOed connection more rapidly than it would have previously (for
instance, modified BSD-derived TCPs may still attempt retransmission
12 times, and then abandon the connection, even if LUNs cause
retransmissions to take place before an RTO timer would have
expired).
This memo assumes that fully-backed-off TCP connections for
interactive applications will often be abandoned anyway, resulting in
additional traffic (SYN/SYN-ACKs, etc.), so that these considerations
may be outweighed by traffic avoidance in these situations.
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft "Link-Up" Notifications May 2003
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations for this document.
Author's Address
Spencer Dawkins
MCSR Labs
1547 Rivercrest Blvd.
Allen, TX 75002
US
Phone: +1-972-727-9834
EMail: spencer@mcsr-labs.org
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft "Link-Up" Notifications May 2003
Appendix A. References
[LINK]: "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", Phil Karn
(editor), February 2003 [draft-ietf-pilc-link-design-13.txt, work
in progress]
[LINKNOTE]: "Kicking TCP", posting on PILC mailing list by Phil Karn,
March 7, 2000 [http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/list/archive/0691.html]
[PILC]: "Performance Implications of Link Characteristics", IETF
Working group [http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/
pilc-charter.html]
[RFC793]: "Transmission Control Protocol", J. Postel, September, 1981
[ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc793.txt]
[RFC2119]: "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", S. Bradner, March 1997 [ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/
in-notes/rfc2119.txt]
[RFC2988]: "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", V. Paxson, M.
Allman, November, 2000 [ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/
rfc2988.txt]
[TRIGTRAN56]: "Triggers for Transport (TRIGTRAN) BoF minutes", March,
2003 [http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/minutes/trigtran.htm]
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft "Link-Up" Notifications May 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft "Link-Up" Notifications May 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Dawkins Expires November 20, 2003 [Page 11]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 06:35:38 |