One document matched: draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-02.txt
Differences from draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-01.txt
TCPM Working Group G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft I. Biswas
Intended status: Standards Track University of Aberdeen
Expires: June 26, 2012 December 24, 2011
Updating TCP to support Variable-Rate Traffic
draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-02
Abstract
This document addresses issues that arise when TCP is used to support
variable-rate traffic that exhibts periods where the transmission
rate is limited by the application rather than the congestion window.
It updates TCP to allow a TCP sender to restart quickly following
either an idle or applications-limited interval. The method is
expected to benefit variable-rate TCP applications, while also
providing an appropriate response if congestion is experienced.
The document also evaluates TCP Congestion Window Validation (CWV),
an IETF experimental specification defined in RFC 2861, and concludes
that CWV sought to address important issues, but failed to deliver a
widely used solution. This document recommends that the IETF should
consider moving RFC 2861 from Experimental to Historic status, and
that this is replaced by the current specification.
Status of this Memo
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 http://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 June 26, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Fairhurst & Biswas Expires June 26, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TCP support for Variable-Rate Traffic December 2011
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Reviewing experience with TCP-CWV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. An updated TCP response to idle and application-limited
periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. A method for preserving cwnd in idle and
application-limited periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. The nonvalidated phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. TCP congestion control during the nonvalidated phase . . . 6
4.3.1. Adjustment at the end of the nonvalidated phase . . . 7
4.3.2. Response to congestion in the nonvalidated phase . . . 7
4.4. Determining a safe period to preserve cwnd . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fairhurst & Biswas Expires June 26, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TCP support for Variable-Rate Traffic December 2011
1. Introduction
The TCP congestion window (cwnd) controls the number of packets/bytes
that a TCP flow may have in the network at any time. A bulk
application will always have data available to transmit. The rate it
sends is therefore limited by the maximum permitted by the receiver
and congestion windows. In contrast, a variable-rate application may
experience periods when the sender is either idle or is unable to
send at the maximum permitted rate. This latter case is called
application-limited. The focus of this document is on the operation
of TCP with such an idle or application-limited case.
Standard TCP [RFC5681] requires the cwnd to be reset to the restart
window (RW) when an application becomes idle. RFC 2861 noted that
this behaviour was not always observed in current implementations.
Recent experiments [Bis08] confirm this to still be the case.
However, standard TCP does not control growth of the cwnd when the
TCP sender is application-limited. An application-limited sender may
therefore grow a cwnd beyond that corresponding to the current
transmit rate, resulting in a value that does not reflect current
information about the state of the network path. Use of such an
invalid cwnd may result in reduced application performance and/or
could significantly contribute to network congestion.
These issues were noted in [RFC2861], which proposed a solution,
known as Congestion Window Validation (CWV). CWV was intended to
help reduce the cases where TCP accumulated an invalid cwnd. The use
and drawbacks of CWV are discussed in Section 2.
Section 4 specifies an alternative to CWV that seeks to address the
same issues, but does this in a way that is expected to mitigate the
impact on an application that varies its transmission rate. The
method described applies to both an application-limited and an idle
condition.
2. Reviewing experience with TCP-CWV
RFC 2861 described a simple modification to the TCP congestion
control algorithm that decayed the cwnd after the transition from a
"sufficiently-long" idle period. It used the slow-start threshold
(ssthresh) to save information about the previous value of the
congestion window. This approach relaxed the standard TCP behaviour
[RFC5681] for an idle session, intended to improve application
performance. CWV also modified the behaviour for an application-
limited session where a sender transmits at a rate less than allowed
by cwnd.
Fairhurst & Biswas Expires June 26, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TCP support for Variable-Rate Traffic December 2011
RFC 2861 has been implemented in some mainstream operating systems as
the default behaviour [Bis08]. Analysis (e.g. [Bis10]) has shown
that a TCP sender using CWV is able to use available capacity on a
shared path after an idle period. This can have benefit, especially
over long delay paths, when compared to slow-start restart specified
by standard TCP. CWV offers a benefit compared to standard TCP for
an application that has periods of idleness. However, CWV would only
benefit the application if the idle period were less than several
RTOs, since the behaviour would otherwise be the same as for standard
TCP, which resets the cwnd to the RW after this period.
Experience with CWV suggests that although CWV benefits the network
in an application-limited scenario (reducing the probability of
network congestion), the behaviour can be too conservative for many
common variable-rate applications. This mechanism does not therefore
offer the desirable increase in application performance for variable
rate applications and it is unclear whether applications actually use
this mechanism in the general Internet.
It is therefore concluded that CWV is often a poor solution for many
variable rate applications. In summary, CWV has the correct
motivation, but has the wrong approach to solving this problem.
3. Terminology
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].
The document assumes familiarity with the terminology of TCP
congestion control [RFC5681].
4. An updated TCP response to idle and application-limited periods
This section proposes an update to the TCP congestion control
behaviour during an idle or application-limited period. The new
method permits a TCP sender to preserve the cwnd when an application
becomes idle for a period of time (set in this specification to 6
minutes). This period, where actual usage is less than allowed by
cwnd, is named the non-validated phase. The method allows an
application to resume transmission at a previous rate without
incurring the delay of slow-start. However, if the TCP sender
experiences congestion using the preserved cwnd, it is required to
immediately reset the cwnd to an appropriate value specified by the
method. If a sender does not take advantage of the preserved cwnd
within 6 minutes, the value of cwnd is reduced, ensuring the value
Fairhurst & Biswas Expires June 26, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TCP support for Variable-Rate Traffic December 2011
then reflects the capacity that was recently actually used.
The new method does not differentiate between times when the sender
has become idle or application-limited. This is partly a response to
recognition that some applications wish to transmit at a variable-
rate, and that it can be hard to make a distinction between
application-limited and idle behaviour.
The method requires that the TCP SACK option is enabled. This allows
the sender to select a cwnd following a congestion event that is
based on the measured path capacity path, better reflecting the fair-
share. A similar approach was proposed by TCP Jump Start [Liu07], as
a congestion response after more rapid opening of a TCP connection.
It is expected that the update will satisfy the requirements of many
variable-rate applications and at the same time provide an
appropriate method for use in the Internet. The method reduces the
incentive for an application to send data simply to keep transport
congestion state. (This is sometimes known as padding). It does not
differentiate between times when the sender has become idle or
application-limited. This is partly a response to recognition that
some applications wish to transmit at a variable-rate, and that it
can be hard to make a distinction between application-limited and
idle behaviour. This update is expected to encourage applications
and TCP stacks to use standards-based congestion control methods. It
may also encourage the use of long-lived connections where this
offers benefit (such as persistent http).
4.1. A method for preserving cwnd in idle and application-limited
periods.
The method described in this document updates RFC 5681. Use of the
method REQUIRES a TCP sender and the corresponding receiver to enable
the TCP SACK option [RFC3517].
RFC 5681 defines a variable FlightSize, that indicates the amount of
outstanding data in the network. In RFC 5681 this is used during
loss recovery, whereas in this method it is also used during normal
data transfer. A sender is not required to continuously track this
value, but SHOULD measure the volume of data in the network with a
sampling period of not less than one RTT period.
4.2. The nonvalidated phase
The updated method creates a new TCP phase that captures whether the
cwnd reflects a validated or non-validated value. The phases are
defined as:
Fairhurst & Biswas Expires June 26, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TCP support for Variable-Rate Traffic December 2011
o Validated phase: FlightSize >=(2/3)*cwnd. This is the normal
phase, where cwnd is an approximate indication of available
capacity currently available along the network path, and standard
mechanisms are used [RFC5861].
o Non-validated phase: FlightSize <(2/3)*cwnd. This is the phase
where the cwnd has a value based on a previous measurement of the
available capacity, and the usage of this capacity has not been
validated in the previous RTT. That is, the transmission rate was
not being constrained by the cwnd. The methods to be used in this
phase seek to determine whether any resumed rate remains safe for
the Internet path, i.e., it quickly reduces the rate if the flow
induces congestion. The mechanisms are specified in the following
sections.
4.3. TCP congestion control during the nonvalidated phase
A TCP sender that enters the non-validated phase MUST preserve the
cwnd (i.e., this neither grows nor reduces while the sender remains
in this phase). The phase is concluded after a fixed period of time
(6 minutes, as explained in section 4.4) or when the sender transmits
using the full cwnd (i.e. it is no longer application-limited).
The behaviour in the non-validated phase is specified as:
o If the sender consumes all the available space within the cwnd
(i.e., the remaining unused cwnd in bytes is less than one SMSS),
then the sender MUST exit the non-validated phase.
o If the sender receives an indication of congestion while in the
non-validated phase (i.e. detects loss, or an Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) mark), the sender MUST exit the non-validated
phase (reducing the cwnd).
o If the Retransmission Time Out (RTO) expires while in the non-
validated phase, the sender MUST exit the non-validated phase. It
then resumes using the Standard TCP RTO mechanism [RFC 5861].
(The resulting reduction of cwnd is appropriate, since any
accumulated path history is considered unreliable).
The threshold value of cwnd required for the sender to enter the non-
validated phase is intentionally different to that required to leave
the phase. This introduces hysteresis to avoid rapid oscillation
between the phases. Note that the change between phases does not
significantly impact an application-limited sender.
Fairhurst & Biswas Expires June 26, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TCP support for Variable-Rate Traffic December 2011
4.3.1. Adjustment at the end of the nonvalidated phase
During the non-validated phase, an application may produce bursts of
data of up to the cwnd in size. This is no different to normal TCP,
however, as for TCP, it is desirable to control the maximum burst
size, e.g. by setting a burst size limit, using a pacing algorithm,
or some other method.
An application that remains in the non-validated phase for a period
greater than six minutes is required to adjust its congestion control
state.
At the end of the non-validated phase, the sender MUST update cwnd:
cwnd = max(FlightSize*2, IW).
Where IW is the TCP initial window [RFC5681].
(The value for cwnd was chosen to allow an application to continue to
send at the currently utilised rate, and not incur delay should it
increase to twice the utilised rate.)
The sender also MUST reset the ssthresh:
ssthresh = max(ssthresh, 3*cwnd/4).
This adjustment of ssthresh ensures that the sender records that it
has safely sustained the present rate. The change is beneficial to
application-limited flows that encounter occasional congestion, and
could otherwise suffer an unwanted additional delay in recovering the
transmission rate.
The sender MAY re-enter the non-validated phase, if required (see
section 4.2).
4.3.2. Response to congestion in the nonvalidated phase
Reception of congestion feedback while in the non-validated phase,
i.e., a sender that detects a packet-drop or receives an Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN), indicating it was inappropriate for
the sender to use the preserved cwnd. The sender is therefore
required to quickly reduce the rate to avoid further congestion.
Since the cwnd does not have a validated value, a new cwnd value must
be selected based on the utilised rate.
When congestion is detected, the sender MUST therefore calculate a
safe cwnd, based on the volume of acknowledged data:
cwnd = FlightSize - R.
Fairhurst & Biswas Expires June 26, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TCP support for Variable-Rate Traffic December 2011
Where, R is the volume of data that was reported as unacknowledged by
the SACK information. This follows the method proposed for Jump
Start [Liu07].
At the end of the recovery phase, the TCP sender MUST reset the cwnd
using the method below:
cwnd = (FlightSize/2).
4.4. Determining a safe period to preserve cwnd
Setting a limit to the period that cwnd is preserved avoids
undesirable side effects that would result if the cwnd were to be
preserved for an arbitrary long period, which was a part of the
problem that CWV originally attempted to address.
The period a sender may safely preserve the cwnd, is a function of
the period that a network path is expected to sustain the capacity
reflected by cwnd. There is no perfect choice for this time. The
period of six minutes was chosen as a compromise that was larger than
the idle intervals of common applications, but not sufficiently
larger than the period for which the capacity of an Internet path may
commonly be regarded as stable. The capacity of wired networks is
usually relatively stable for periods of several minutes and that
load stability increases with the capacity. This suggests that cwnd
may be preserved for at least a few minutes.
There are cases where the TCP throughput exhibits significant
variability over a time less than six minutes. Examples could
include wireless topologies, where TCP rate variations may fluctuate
on the order of a few seconds as a consequence of medium access
protocol instabilities. Mobility changes may also impact TCP
performance over short time scales. Senders that observe such rapid
changes in the path characteristic may also experience increased
congestion with the new method, however such variation would likely
also impact TCP's behaviour when supporting interactive and bulk
applications.
Routing algorithms may modify the network path, disrupting the RTT
measurement and changing the capacity available to a TCP connection,
however such changes do not often occur within a time frame of a few
minutes.
The value of six minutes is therefore expected to be sufficient for
most current applications. Simulation studies also suggest that for
many practical applications, the performance using this value will
not be significantly different to that observed using a non-standard
method that does not reset the cwnd after idle.
Fairhurst & Biswas Expires June 26, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TCP support for Variable-Rate Traffic December 2011
5. Security Considerations
General security considerations concerning TCP congestion control are
discussed in RFC 5681. This document describes an algorithm that
updates one aspect of the congestion control procedures, and so the
considerations described in RFC 5681 apply to this algorithm also.
6. IANA Considerations
None.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr A Sathiaseelan and Dr
R Secchi in supporting the evaluation of CWV and for their help in
developing the mechanisms proposed in this draft.
Israfil Biswas was partially supported by the School of Engineering,
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2861] Handley, M., Padhye, J., and S. Floyd, "TCP Congestion
Window Validation", RFC 2861, June 2000.
[RFC3517] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Fall, K., and L. Wang, "A
Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss
Recovery Algorithm for TCP", RFC 3517, April 2003.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
8.2. Informative References
[Bis08] Biswas and Fairhurst, "A Practical Evaluation of
Congestion Window Validation Behaviour, 9th Annual
Postgraduate Symposium in the Convergence of
Telecommunications, Networking and Broadcasting (PGNet),
Liverpool, UK, Jun. 2008.".
Fairhurst & Biswas Expires June 26, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TCP support for Variable-Rate Traffic December 2011
[Bis10] Biswas, Sathiaseelan, Secchi, and Fairhurst, "Analysing
TCP for Bursty Traffic, Int'l J. of Communications,
Network and System Sciences, 7(3), July 2010.".
[Liu07] Liu, Allman, Jiny, and Wang, "Congestion Control without a
Startup Phase, 5th International Workshop on Protocols for
Fast Long-Distance Networks (PFLDnet), Los Angeles,
California, USA, Feb. 2007.".
Authors' Addresses
Godred Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen, Scotland AB24 3UE
UK
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
URI: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk
Israfil Biswas
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen, Scotland AB24 3UE
UK
Email: israfil@erg.abdn.ac.uk
URI: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk
Fairhurst & Biswas Expires June 26, 2012 [Page 10]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 17:17:01 |