One document matched: draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-03.txt
Differences from draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-02.txt
TCPM Working Group G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft A. Sathiaseelan
Updates: 5681 (if approved) University of Aberdeen
Obsoletes: 2861 (if approved) June 06, 2012
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: December 06, 2012
Updating TCP to support Variable-Rate Traffic
draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-03
Abstract
This document addresses issues that arise when TCP is used to support
variable-rate traffic that exhibits 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 application-limited interval. The method is
expected to benefit variable-rate TCP applications, while also
providing an appropriate response if congestion is experienced.
It 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 therefore 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 December 06, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Fairhurst & SathiaseelaExpires December 06, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft June 2012
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
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 . . . 5
4.3.1. Adjustment at the end of the nonvalidated phase . . . 6
4.3.2. Response to congestion in the nonvalidated phase . . . 7
4.4. Determining a safe period to preserve cwnd . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
TCP is used to support a range of application behaviours. 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 at which it
sends is therefore limited by the maximum permitted by the receiver
and congestion windows. In contrast, a variable-rate application
will experience periods when the sender is either idle or is unable
to send at the maximum rate permitted by the cwnd. This latter case
is called application-limited. The focus of this document is on the
operation of TCP in 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. [RFC2861] noted that
this TCP behaviour was not always observed in current
implementations. Recent experiments [Bis08] confirm this to still be
Fairhurst & SathiaseelaExpires December 06, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft June 2012
the case.
Standard TCP does not control growth of the cwnd when a variable-rate
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 the flow is using.
Use of such an invalid cwnd may result in reduced application
performance and/or could significantly contribute to network
congestion.
[RFC2861] proposed a solution to these issues in an experimental
method known as Congestion Window Validation (CWV). CWV was intended
to help reduce cases where TCP accumulated an invalid cwnd. The use
and drawbacks of using CWV with an application 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 to a
"sufficiently-long" idle period. This used the slow-start threshold
(ssthresh) to save information about the previous value of the
congestion window. The 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 transmitted at a rate less than
allowed by cwnd.
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 benefit some
applications, especially over long delay paths, when compared to
slow-start restart specified by standard TCP. However, CWV would only
benefit an application if the idle period were less than several
Retransmission Time Out (RTO) intervals [RFC2988], 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.
Fairhurst & SathiaseelaExpires December 06, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft June 2012
It is therefore concluded that CWV is often a poor solution for many
variable rate applications. It 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 5
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 five minutes, the value of cwnd is reduced, ensuring the value
then reflects the capacity that was recently actually used.
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, 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 this update will satisfy the requirements of many
variable-rate applications and at the same time provide an
appropriate method for use in the Internet. It also reduces the
incentive for an application to send data simply to keep transport
congestion state. (This is sometimes known as "padding").
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. This is expected to
encourage applications and TCP stacks to use standards-based
congestion control methods. It may also encourage the use of long-
Fairhurst & SathiaseelaExpires December 06, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft June 2012
lived connections where this offers benefit (such as persistent
http).
The method is specified in following subsections.
4.1. A method for preserving cwnd in idle and application-limited
periods.
The method described in this document updates [RFC5681]. Use of the
method REQUIRES a TCP sender and the corresponding receiver to enable
the TCP SACK option [RFC3517].
[RFC5681] defines a variable FlightSize , that indicates the amount
of outstanding data in the network. In RFC5681 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 sender phase that captures
whether the cwnd reflects a validated or non-validated value. The
phases are defined as:
o Validated phase: FlightSize >=(2/3)*cwnd. This is the normal
phase, where cwnd is expected to be an approximate indication of
the available capacity currently available along the network path,
and the standard methods are used (currently [RFC5681]).
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, when it is not known
whether the cwnd reflects the currently available capacity
available along the network path. The mechanisms 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 is known to induce congestion. These mechanisms are
specified in section 4.3.
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
(five minutes, as explained in section 4.4) or when the sender
transmits using the full cwnd (i.e. it is no longer application-
Fairhurst & SathiaseelaExpires December 06, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft June 2012
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 Sender
Maximum Segment Size, 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 [RFC3168]), the sender MUST exit the non-
validated phase (reducing the cwnd as defined in section 4.3.1).
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 [RFC5681]. (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 a change between phases does not
significantly impact an application-limited sender, but serves to
determine its behaviour if it substantially increases its
transmission rate.
4.3.1. Adjustment at the end of the nonvalidated phase
During the non-validated phase, the sender may produce bursts of data
of up to the cwnd in size. While this is no different to standard
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 five 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].
(This allows 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).
Fairhurst & SathiaseelaExpires December 06, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft June 2012
(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.)
After completing this adjustment, 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 is
interpreted as an indication that 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.
A sender that detects a packet-drop or receives an ECN marked packet
MUST calculate a safe cwnd, based on the volume of acknowledged data:
cwnd = FlightSize - R.
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 - R)/2).
4.4. Determining a safe period to preserve cwnd
This section documents the rationale for selecting the maximum period
that cwnd may be preserved.
Preserving cwnd 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 ideal choice for this time.
The period of five 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.
Fairhurst & SathiaseelaExpires December 06, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft June 2012
There are cases where the TCP throughput exhibits significant
variability over a time less than five 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 five 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.
Finally, other TCP sender mechanisms have used a 5 minute timer, and
there could be simplifications in some implementations by reusing the
same interval.
5. Security Considerations
General security considerations concerning TCP congestion control are
discussed in [RFC5681]. This document describes an algorithm that
updates one aspect of the congestion control procedures, and so the
considerations described in RFC 5681 also apply to this algorithm.
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr I Biswas and Dr R
Secchi in supporting the evaluation of CWV and for their help in
developing the mechanisms proposed in this draft. We also
acknowledge comments received from the Internet Congestion Control
Research Group.
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.
Fairhurst & SathiaseelaExpires December 06, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft June 2012
[RFC2861] Handley, M., Padhye, J. and S. Floyd, "TCP Congestion
Window Validation", RFC 2861, June 2000.
[RFC2988] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission
Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S. and D. Black, "The Addition of
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168,
September 2001.
[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", June 2008.
[Bis10] Biswas, , Sathiaseelan, , Secchi, and Fairhurst,
"Analysing TCP for Bursty Traffic, Int'l J. of
Communications, Network and System Sciences, 7(3)", June
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", February 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
Fairhurst & SathiaseelaExpires December 06, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft June 2012
Arjuna Sathiaseelan
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen, Scotland AB24 3UE
UK
Email: arjuna@erg.abdn.ac.uk
URI: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk
Fairhurst & SathiaseelaExpires December 06, 2012 [Page 10]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 11:28:33 |