One document matched: draft-ietf-dccp-user-guide-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-dccp-user-guide-01.txt
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
DCCP User Guide
Internet Draft T. Phelan
Document: draft-ietf-dccp-user-guide-02.txt Sonus Networks
Expires: January 2005 July 2004
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) User Guide
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
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.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract
This document is an informative reference discussing strategies for
using DCCP as the transport protocol for various applications. The
focus is on how applications can make use of the capabilities, and
deal with the idiosyncrasies, of DCCP. Of particular interest is how
UDP applications, which have traditionally ignored congestion control
issues, can adapt to a congestion controlled transport.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1 Candidate Applications.....................................3
1.2 Which CCID?................................................4
1.3 Document Organization......................................5
2. Streaming Media Applications...................................5
2.1 Types of Media Applications................................6
2.2 Stream Switching...........................................6
2.3 Media Buffers..............................................7
2.4 CCID Choice................................................7
2.5 Variable Rate Media Streams................................7
2.6 TFRC Basics................................................8
2.7 First Attempt -- One-way Pre-recorded Media................9
2.7.1 Strategy 1...........................................10
2.7.2 Issues With Strategy 1...............................11
2.8 Second Try -- One-way Live Media..........................12
2.8.1 Strategy 2...........................................12
2.8.2 Issues with Strategy 2...............................13
2.9 One More Time -- Two-way Interactive Media................14
2.9.1 Strategy 3...........................................14
2.9.2 Issues with Strategy 3...............................15
2.9.3 A Thought Experiment.................................15
2.9.4 Fairness.............................................17
3. Interactive Games.............................................18
3.1 Rate Limiting.............................................19
3.1.1 Idleness Problems....................................19
3.2 Partial Reliability.......................................20
3.3 Sequence Numbers..........................................21
4. Miscellaneous Capabilities....................................21
4.1 Path MTU Discovery........................................21
4.2 Mobility and Multihoming..................................22
4.3 Partial Checksums and Payload Checksums...................22
4.4 ECN Support...............................................23
4.5 Slow Receiver Option......................................23
4.6 Detecting Lost Application Data...........................23
5. Security Considerations.......................................24
6. IANA Considerations...........................................24
7. Thanks........................................................25
8. Informative References........................................25
9. Author's Address..............................................26
10. Full Copyright Statement.....................................26
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
Editor's note: Versions of this draft with marked changes from -01
are available:
Inserts and deletes: http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-
user-guide-02-all-diffs.pdf
Inserts only: http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-user-
guide-02-inserts.pdf
1. Introduction
The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), as defined in
[DCCP], is a transport protocol that implements a congestion-
controlled unreliable service. Currently, there are two congestion
control algorithms for DCCP, referred to by Congestion Control
Identifiers (CCIDs). CCID2 is a TCP-like additive increase
multiplicative decrease (AIMD) algorithm [CCID2]. CCID3 is an
implementation of TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) [RFC 3448],
[CCID3]. The congestion control algorithm in effect for each
direction of data transfer is chosen at connection setup time.
Many applications that currently use UDP [RFC 768] are candidates for
DCCP. The main difference applications will see between UDP and DCCP
is congestion control. Because it is complicated to get right, many
UDP applications ignore or greatly simplify congestion control
issues, even though this can lead to application and network
misbehavior. Because of this, some UDP applications employ
strategies that are unsuitable for a congestion-controlled transport.
Adapting these applications to DCCP will likely require some new
modes of thought.
This document explores issues to consider and strategies to employ
when adapting or creating applications to use DCCP. The approach
here is one of successive refinement. Strategies are described and
their strengths and weaknesses are explored. New strategies are then
presented that improve on the previous ones and the process iterates.
The intent is to illuminate the issues, rather than to jump to
solutions, in order to provide guidance to application designers.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the mechanisms of DCCP and
the CCIDs.
1.1 Candidate Applications
Many applications that currently use UDP, and some that use TCP, are
candidates for DCCP. Basically, applications with some of the
following characteristics should consider DCCP:
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
o There are flows of packets from one end system to another that
are larger than a few handfuls of packets.
o Lost packets should be ignored or replaced with updated data --
timeliness is preferred over reliability.
o There is a preference for immediate delivery of packets as they
arrive over strict in-order delivery by waiting for out-of-order
packets to arrive.
o There is a preference for immediate transmission of small chunks
of data.
o The large transmission rate variations that are typical of TCP
congestion control are problematic.
Major examples of applications that fit these characteristics are
streaming media, including Internet telephony, and multiplayer on-
line games. Without DCCP, these applications either use UDP and
mostly ignore or greatly simplify congestion control issues, or use
TCP and live with the timeliness and rate variation problems.
Another major use of UDP involves one-shot request-response cycles,
with packet flows limited to at most a few packets in each direction
(for example, DNS, SNMP, MGCP). These applications are unlikely to
benefit from DCCP.
1.2 Which CCID?
CCID2, TCP-like congestion control, uses a packet-oriented
modification of TCP's SACK-based Additive-Increase-Multiplicative-
Decrease (AIMD) congestion control [RFC 3517]. CCID2 uses a
congestion window (the maximum number of packets in flight) to limit
the transmitter. The congestion window is increased by one for each
acknowledged packet, or for each window of acknowledged packets,
depending on the phase of operation. If any packet is dropped (or
ECN-marked; for simplicity in the rest of the document assume that
"dropped" equals "dropped or ECN-marked"), the congestion window is
halved. This produces a characteristic saw-tooth wave variation in
throughput, where the throughput increases linearly up to the network
capacity and then drops abruptly (roughly shown in Figure 1).
|
| /| /| /| /| /
| / | / | / | / | /
Throughput| / | / | / | / | /
| / | / | / | / | /
| / |/ |/ |/ |/
|
----------------------------------
Time
Figure 1: Characteristic throughput for TCP-like congestion control.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
With CCID3, TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC), the immediate response
to packet drops is less dramatic. To compensate for this CCID3 is
less aggressive in probing for new capacity after a loss. The
characteristic throughput graph for a CCID3 connection looks like a
flattened sine wave (extremely roughly shown in Figure 2).
|
| -- -- --
| / \ / \ / \
Throughput| / \ / \ / \
| / \ / \ / \
|- -- -- -
|
----------------------------------
Time
Figure 2: Characteristic throughput for TFRC congestion control.
The CCID that is appropriate for a given application depends on the
tradeoff between the application's sensitivity to abrupt rate
changes, and its need to rapidly consume available capacity.
Applications that simply want to transfer as much data in the
shortest time possible probably should use CCID2. Applications that
have some natural limits on transmission rates are probably better
served by CCID3. Applications that perform some progressive display
of incoming data, and want to avoid abrupt variations in the update
rate, would prefer CCID3.
1.3 Document Organization
Sections 2 and 3 explore the specific issues involved in using DCCP
for streaming media and interactive game applications, respectively.
Many of the issues discussed in these sections are also applicable to
other applications. Section 4 discusses capabilities of DCCP not
mentioned in the application-specific sections that can be used to
offload features that are normally built at the application layer for
UDP-based applications. Section 5 discusses the security-related
features of DCCP.
2. Streaming Media Applications
The canonical streaming media application emits fixed-sized (often
small) RTP/UDP packets at a regular interval [RFC 3550]. It relies
on the network to deliver the packets to the receiver in roughly the
same regular interval. Often, the transmitter operates in a fire-
and-forget mode, receiving no indications of packet delivery. This
often still holds true even if RTCP [RFC 3550] is used to get
receiver information; it's rare that the RTCP reports trigger changes
in the transmitted stream.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
The IAB has expressed concerns over the stability of the Internet if
these applications become too popular with regard to TCP-based
applications [IABCONG]. They suggest that media applications should
monitor their packet loss rate, and abort if they exceed certain
thresholds. Unfortunately, up until this threshold is reached, the
network, the media applications and the other applications are
experiencing considerable duress.
DCCP offers an opportunity for media applications to satisfy the IAB
concerns in a way that is better for both the network and the
applications themselves. However, this does require some rather
significant shifts from current practices. These shifts are explored
in this section.
2.1 Types of Media Applications
While all streaming media applications have some characteristics in
common (e.g. data must arrive at the receiver at some minimum rate
for reasonable operation), other characteristics (e.g. tolerance of
delay) vary considerably from application to application. For the
purposes of this document, it's useful to divide streaming media
applications into three subtypes:
o One-way pre-recorded media
o One-way live media
o Two-way interactive media
The relevant difference, as far as this discussion goes, between
recorded and live media is that recorded media can be transmitted as
fast as the network allows (assuming adequate buffering at the
receiver) -- it could be viewed as a special file transfer operation.
Live media can't be transmitted faster than the rate that it's
encoded.
The difference between one-way and two-way media is the sensitivity
to delay. For one-way applications, delays from transmit at the
sender to playout at the receiver of several or even tens of seconds
are acceptable. For two-way applications delays from transmit to
playout of as little as 150 to 200 ms are often problematic [XTIME].
2.2 Stream Switching
The discussion here assumes that media transmitters are able to
provide their data in a number of encodings with various bit rate
requirements, as described in [SWITCH], and are able to dynamically
change between these encodings with low overhead. It also assumes
that switching back and forth between coding rates does not cause
excessive user annoyance.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
Given the current state of codec art, these are big assumptions. The
algorithms and results described here, however, hold even if the
media sources can only supply media at one rate. Obviously the
statements about switching encoding rates don't apply, and an
application with only one encoding rate behaves as if it is
simultaneously at its minimum and maximum rate.
For convenience in the discussion below, assume that all media
streams have two encodings, a high bit rate and a low bit rate,
unless otherwise indicated.
2.3 Media Buffers
Many of the strategies below make use of the concept of a media
buffer. A media buffer is a first-in-first-out queue of media data.
The buffer is filled by some source of data and drained by some sink.
It provides rate and jitter compensation between the source and the
sink.
Media buffer contents are measured in seconds of media play time, not
bytes or packets. Media buffers are completely application-level
constructs and are separate from transport-layer transmit and receive
queues.
2.4 CCID Choice
For two-way media applications, CCID3 (TFRC) is by far the most
appropriate congestion control algorithm. Since CCID2 halves the
transmit rate when packets are lost, the media encoding steps would
need to be at least a factor of two apart. If the encoding steps are
less than a factor of two, the application will need to additive
increase up after a packet loss; two-way media applications will
rarely be able to afford the delays necessary. With the smooth
variations in CCID3 the application has much more freedom to choose
encoding rate steps.
One-way applications could possibly use CCID2, since they can
tolerate more delay during the rate shifts. However, one-way
applications often have self-imposed limits on maximum transmission
rates that mean they will be unable to reap the higher throughput
benefits of CCID2.
2.5 Variable Rate Media Streams
The canonical media codec encodes its media as a constant rate bit
stream. As the technology has progressed from its time-division
multiplexing roots, this constant rate stream has become not so
constant. Voice codecs often employ silence suppression, where the
stream (in at least one direction) goes totally idle for sometimes
several seconds while one side listens to what the other side has to
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
say. When the one side wants to start talking again, the codec
resumes sending immediately at its "constant" rate.
Video codecs similarly employ what could be called "stillness"
suppression. Often these codecs effectively transmit the changes
from one video frame to another. When there is little change from
frame to frame (as when the background is constant and a talking head
is just moving its lips) the amount of information to send is small.
When there is a major motion, or change of scene, much more
information must be sent. For some codecs, the variation from the
minimum rate to the maximum rate can be a factor of ten. Unlike
voice codecs, though, video codecs typically never go completely
idle.
These abrupt jumps in transmission rate are problematic for any
congestion control algorithm. A basic tenet of all existing
algorithms assumes that increases in transmission rate must be
gradual and smooth to avoid damaging other connections in the
network.
CCID3 uses a maximum rate of two packets per RTT after an idle
period. This rate might support immediate restart of voice data
after a silence period, at least when the RTT is in the suitable
range for two-way media. More problematic are the factor of ten
variations in video codecs. In some circumstances, CCID3 (and CCID2)
allows an application to double its transmit rate over one RTT
(assuming no recent packet loss events), but an immediate ten times
increase is not possible.
2.6 TFRC Basics
The job of mapping media applications onto the packet formats and
connection handshake mechanisms of DCCP proper is straightforward,
and won't be dealt with here. The problem for this section is how
media stream applications can make use of and adapt to the
idiosyncrasies of TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC), as implemented in
CCID3.
Data streams controlled by TFRC must vary their transmission rates in
ways that, at first blush, seem at odds with common media stream
transmission practices. Some particular considerations are:
o Slow Start -- A connection starts out with a transmission rate of
up to four packets per round trip time (RTT). After the first
RTT, the rate is doubled each RTT until a packet is lost. At
this point the transmission rate is halved and we enter the
additive increase phase of operation. It's likely that in many
situations the initial transmit rate is slower than the lowest
bit rate encoding of the media. This will require the
application to deal with a ramp up period.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
o Capacity Probing and Lost Packets -- If the application transmits
for some time at the maximum rate that TFRC will allow without
packet loss, TFRC will continuously raise the allowed rate until
a packet is lost. This means that, in many circumstances, if an
application wants to transmit at the maximum possible rate,
packet loss will not be an exceptional event, but will happen
routinely in the course of probing for more capacity.
o Idleness Penalty -- TFRC follows a "use it or lose it" policy.
If the transmitter goes idle for a few RTTs, as it would if, for
instance, silence suppression were being used, the transmit rate
returns to two packets per RTT, and then doubles every RTT until
the previous rate is achieved. This can make restarting after a
silence suppression interval problematic.
o Contentment Penalty -- TFRC likes to satisfy greed. If you are
transmitting at the maximum allowed rate, TFRC will try to raise
that rate. However, if your application is transmitting below
the maximum allowed rate, the maximum allowed rate will not be
increased higher than twice the current transmit rate, no matter
how long it has been since the last increase. This can create
problems when attempting to shift to a higher rate encoding, or
with video codecs that vary the transmission rate with the amount
of movement in the image.
o Packet Rate, not Bit Rate -- TFRC controls the rate that packets
may enter the network, not bytes. To respond to a lowered
transmit rate you must reduce the packet transmission rate.
Making the packets smaller while still keeping the same packet
rate will not be effective.
o Smooth Variance of Transmit Rate -- The strength and purpose of
TFRC (over TCP-Like Congestion Control, CCID2) is that it
smoothly decreases the transmission rate in response to recent
packet loss events, and smoothly increases the rate in the
absence of loss events. This smoothness is somewhat at odds with
most media stream encodings, where the transition from one rate
to another is often a step function.
2.7 First Attempt -- One-way Pre-recorded Media
The first strategy is suitable for use with pre-recorded media, and
takes advantage of the fact that the data for pre-recorded media can
be transferred to the receiver as fast as the network will allow it,
assuming that the receiver has sufficient buffer space.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
2.7.1 Strategy 1
Assume a recorded program resides on a media server, and the server
and its clients are capable of stream switching between two encoding
rates, as described in section 2.2.
The client (receiver) implements a media buffer as a playout buffer.
This buffer is potentially big enough to hold the entire recording.
The playout buffer has three thresholds: a low threshold, a playback
start threshold, and a high threshold, in order of increasing size.
These values will typically be in the several to tens of seconds
range. The buffer is filled by data arriving from the network and
drained at the decoding rate necessary to display the data to the
user. Figure 3 shows this schematically.
high threshold
| playback start threshold
| | low threshold
+-------+ | | |
| Media | transmit at +---v----v----v--+
| File |---------------->| Playout buffer |-------> display
| | TFRC max rate +----------------+ drain at
+-------+ fill at network decode rate
arrival rate
Figure 3: One-way pre-recorded media.
During the connection the server needs to be able to determine the
depth of data in the playout buffer. This could be provided by
direct feedback from the client to the server, or the server could
estimate its depth (e.g. the server knows how much data has been
sent, and how much time has passed).
To start the connection, the server begins transmitting data in the
high bit rate encoding as fast as TFRC allows. Since TFRC is in slow
start, this is probably too slow initially, but eventually the rate
should increase to fast enough and more. As the client receives data
from the network it adds it to the playout buffer. Once the buffer
depth reaches the playback start threshold, the receiver begins
draining the buffer and playing the contents to the user.
If the network has sufficient capacity, TFRC will eventually raise
the transmit rate to greater than necessary to keep up with the
decoding rate, the playout buffer will back up as necessary, and the
entire program will eventually be transferred.
If the TFRC transmit rate never gets fast enough, or a loss event
makes TFRC drop the rate, the receiver will drain the playout buffer
faster than it is filled. If the playout buffer drops below the low
threshold the server switches to the low bit rate encoding. Assuming
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
that the network has a bit more capacity than the low bit rate
requires, the playout buffer will begin filling again.
When the buffer crosses the high threshold the server switches back
to the high encoding rate. Assuming that the network still doesn't
have enough capacity for the high bit rate, the playout buffer will
start draining again. When it reaches the low threshold the server
switches again to the low bit rate encoding. The server will
oscillate back and forth like this until the connection is concluded.
If the network has insufficient capacity to support the low bit rate
encoding, the playout buffer will eventually drain completely, and
playback will need to be paused until the buffer refills to some
level (presumably the playback start level).
Note that, in this scheme, the server doesn't need to explicitly know
the rate that TFRC has determined; it simply always sends as fast as
TFRC allows (perhaps alternately reading a chunk of data from disk
and then blocking on the socket write call until it's transmitted).
TFRC shapes the stream to the network's requirements, and the playout
buffer feedback allows the server to shape the stream to the
application's requirements.
2.7.2 Issues With Strategy 1
The advantage of this strategy is that it provides insurance against
an unpredictable future. Since there's no guarantee that a currently
supported transmit rate will continue to be supported, the strategy
takes what the network is willing to give when it's willing to give
it. The data is transferred from the server to the client perhaps
faster than is strictly necessary, but once it's there no network
problems (or new sources of traffic) can affect the display.
Silence suppression can be used with this strategy, since the
transmitter doesn't actually go idle during the silence -- it just
gets further ahead.
One obvious disadvantage, if the client is a "thin" device, is the
large buffer at the client. A subtler disadvantage involves the way
TFRC probes the network to determine its capacity. Basically, TFRC
does not have an a priori idea of what the network capacity is; it
simply gradually increases the transmit rate until packets are lost,
then backs down. After a period of time with no losses, the rate is
gradually increased again until more packets are lost. Over the long
term, the transmit rate will oscillate up and down, with packet loss
events occurring at the rate peaks.
This means that packet loss will likely be routine with this
strategy. For any given transfer, the number of lost packets is
likely to be small, but non-zero. Whether this causes noticeable
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
quality problems depends on the characteristics of the particular
codec in use.
If the DCCP connection uses the Ack Vector option for the DCCP-Ack
packets in the return direction, DCCP will be able to tell which
packets are lost. An API could inform the application of lost
packets, and they could be retransmitted at the application layer.
See section 3.2 for more on this.
2.8 Second Try -- One-way Live Media
With one-way live media you can only transmit the data as fast as
it's created, but end-to-end delays of several or tens of seconds are
usually acceptable.
2.8.1 Strategy 2
Assume that we have a playout media buffer at the receiver and a
transmit media buffer at the sender. The transmit buffer is filled
at the encoding rate and drained at the TFRC transmit rate. The
playout buffer is filled at the network arrival rate and drained at
the decoding rate. The playout buffer has a playback start threshold
and the transmit buffer has a switch encoding threshold and a discard
data threshold. These thresholds are on the order of several to tens
of seconds. Switch encoding is less than discard data, which is less
than playback start. Figure 4 shows this schematically.
discard data
| switch encoding
| | playback start
| | |
media +---------v---v---+ +----v-----------+
------->| Transmit buffer |--------->| Playout buffer |---> display
source +-----------------+ transmit +----------------+
fill at at TFRC rate drain at
encode rate decode rate
Figure 4: One-way live media.
At the start of the connection, the sender places data into the
transmit buffer at the high encoding rate. The buffer is drained at
the TFRC transmit rate, which at this point is in slow-start and is
probably slower than the encoding rate. This will cause a backup in
the transmit buffer. Eventually TFRC will slow-start to a rate
slightly above the rate necessary to sustain the encoding rate
(assuming the network has sufficient capacity). When this happens
the transmit buffer will drain and we'll reach a steady state
condition where the transmit buffer is normally empty and we're
transmitting at a rate that is probably below the maximum allowed by
TFRC.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
Meanwhile at the receiver, the playout buffer is filling, and when it
reaches the playback start threshold playback will start. After TFRC
slow-start is complete and the transmit buffer is drained, this
buffer will reach a steady state where packets are arriving from the
network at the encoding rate (ignoring jitter) and being drained at
the (equal) decoding rate. The depth of the buffer will be the
playback start threshold plus the maximum depth of the transmit
buffer during slow start.
Now assume that network congestion (packet losses) forces TFRC to
drop its rate to below that needed by the high encoding rate. The
transmit buffer will begin to fill and the playout buffer will begin
to drain. When the transmit buffer reaches the switch encoding
threshold, the sender switches to the low encoding rate, and converts
all of the data in the transmit buffer to low rate encoding.
Assuming that the network can support the new, lower, rate (and a
little more) the transmit buffer will begin to drain and the playout
buffer will begin to fill. Eventually the transmit buffer will empty
and the playout buffer will be back to its steady state level.
At this point (or perhaps after a slight delay) the sender can switch
back to the higher rate encoding. If the new rate can't be sustained
the transmit buffer will fill again, and the playout buffer will
drain. When the transmit buffer reaches the switch encoding
threshold the sender goes back to the lower encoding rate. This
oscillation continues until the stream ends or the network is able to
support the high encoding rate for the long term.
If the network can't support the low encoding rate, the transmit
buffer will continue to fill (and the playout buffer will continue to
drain). When the transmit buffer reaches the discard data threshold,
the sender must discard data from the transmit buffer for every data
added. Preferably, the discard should happen from the head of the
transmit buffer, as these are the stalest data, but the application
could make other choices (e.g. discard the earliest silence in the
buffer). This discard behavior continues until the transmit buffer
falls below the switch encoding threshold. If the playout buffer
ever drains completely, the receiver should fill the output with
suitable material (e.g. silence or stillness).
Note that this strategy is also suitable for one-way pre-recorded
media, as long as the transmit buffer is only filled at the encoding
rate, not at the disk read rate.
2.8.2 Issues with Strategy 2
Silence suppression can be a problem with strategy 2. If the
encoding rate is low enough -- if it's in the range used by most
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
telephony applications -- the ramp up to the required rate can be
short or nonexistent, and silence suppression can be used. If the
encoding rate is in the range of high-quality music or video, then
silence or stillness suppression could cause problems, although the
playout buffer might provide sufficient elasticity to overcome the
rate ramping issues.
2.9 One More Time -- Two-way Interactive Media
Two-way interactive media is characterized by its low tolerance for
end-to-end delay, usually requiring less than 200 ms., including
jitter buffering at the receiver. Rate adapting buffers will insert
too much delay and the slow start period is likely to be noticeable,
so another strategy is needed.
2.9.1 Strategy 3
To start, the calling party sends an INVITE (loosely using SIP [RFC
3261] terminology) indicating the IP address and DCCP port to use for
media at its end. Without informing the called user, the called
system responds to the INVITE by connecting to the calling party
media port. Both end systems then begin exchanging test data, at the
(slowly increasing) rate allowed by TFRC. The purpose of this test
data is to see what rate the connection can be ramped up to. If a
minimum acceptable rate cannot be achieved within some time period,
the call is cleared (conceptually, the calling party hears "fast
busy" and the called user is never informed of the incoming call).
Note that once the rate has ramped up sufficiently for the highest
rate codec there's no need to go further.
If an acceptable rate can be achieved (in both directions), the
called user is informed of the incoming call. The test data is
continued during this period. Once the called user accepts the call,
the test data is replaced by real data at the same rate.
If congestion is encountered during the call, TFRC will reduce its
allowed sending rate. When that rate falls below the codec currently
in use, the sender switches to a lower rate codec, but should pad its
transmission out to the allowed TFRC rate. If the TFRC rate
continues to fall past the lowest rate codec, the sender must discard
packets to conform to that rate.
If the network capacity is sufficient to support one of the lower
rate codecs, eventually the congestion will clear and TFRC will
slowly increase the allowed transmit rate. The application should
increase its transmission padding to keep up with the increasing TFRC
rate. The application switches back to the higher rate codec when
the TFRC rate reaches a sufficient value.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
Note that the receiver would normally implement a short playout
buffer (with playback start on the order of 100 ms) to smooth out
jitter in the packet arrival gaps.
2.9.2 Issues with Strategy 3
An obvious issue with strategy 3 is the post-dial call connection
delay imposed by the slow-start ramp up. This is perhaps less of an
issue for two-way video applications, where post-dial delays of
several seconds are accepted practice. For telephony applications,
however, post-dial delays significantly greater than a second are a
problem, given that users have been conditioned to that behavior by
the public telephone network. On the other hand, the four packets
per RTT initial transmit rate is likely to be sufficient for many
telephony applications, and the ramp up will be very quick.
Strategy 3 might not support silence suppression well. During the
silence period, TFRC will lower the transmit rate to two packets per
RTT. After the silence the application will need to ramp up to the
necessary data sending rate.
However, there are many telephony codecs and network situations where
two packets per RTT is a sufficient data rate. An application that
knows it's in this situation could conceivably use silence
suppression, knowing that there's no ramp up needed when it returns
to transmission.
The next section explores some more subtle issues.
2.9.3 A Thought Experiment
In [IABCONG], the authors describe a VoIP demonstration given at the
IEPREP working group meeting at the 2002 Atlanta IETF. A VoIP call
was made from a nearby hotel room to a system in Nairobi, Kenya. The
data traveled over a wide variety of interfaces, the slowest of which
was a 128 kbps link between an ISP in Kenya and several of its
subscribers. The media data was contained in typical RTP/UDP
framing, and, as is the usual current practice, the transmitter
transmitted at a constant rate with no feedback for or adjustment to
loss events (although forward error correction was used). The focus
of [IABCONG] was on the fairness of this behavior with regard to TCP
applications sharing that Kenyan link.
Let's imagine this situation if we replace the RTP/UDP media
application with an RTP/DCCP application using strategy 3. Imagine
the media application has two encoding rates that it can switch
between at little cost, a high-rate at 32 kbps and a low-rate at 18
kbps (these are bits-on-the-wire per second). Furthermore, at the
low rate, the receiver can withstand packet loss down to 14 kbps
before the output is unintelligible. These numbers are chosen more
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
for computational convenience than to represent real codecs, but they
should be conceptually representative.
Let's also imagine that there is a TCP-based application, say large
file transfer, whose connection lifetime is of the same order of
magnitude as a voice call.
Now imagine that one media connection is using the Kenyan link. This
connection will slow-start up to 32 kbps and then self-limit at that
rate. The TFRC maximum rate will continue to increase up to 64 kbps,
and then hold because of the lack of demand from the application.
Now add one TCP connection to the Kenyan link. Ideally, the media
connection would receive 32 kbps and the TCP application would get
the remaining 96 kbps.
The situation is not quite that simple, though. A significant
difference between the two applications is their degree of
contentment or greediness. If the media application can achieve 32
kbps throughput, it's satisfied, and won't push for more. The TCP
application, on the hand, is never satisfied with its current
throughput and will always push for more.
Periodically, TCP will probe for more throughput, causing congestion
on our link, and eventually lost packets. If some of the media
packets are lost, DCCP (through TFRC) will back off its transmit
rate. Since that rate is twice what the application actually needs,
and TFRC makes gradual rate changes, it will be a while before the
rate is reduced to below 32 kbps. It's likely that the TCP
connection will experience packet loss before that, though, and halve
its rate, relieving the congestion.
The media connection is therefore somewhat resilient to the TCP
probing. In the steady state, the media connection will transmit at
a constant 32 kbps (with occasional lost packets), while the TCP
connection will vary between 48 and 96 kbps.
Now let's consider what happens when a second media application
connection is added to the existing situation. During the new
connection's test data phase, it will encounter congestion very
quickly, but, after a period of time, it should muscle its way in and
the three connections will coexist, with the media applications
receiving 32 kpbs apiece and the TCP connection getting between 32
and 64 kbps. We'll assume that this jostling period is within the
bounds of the acceptable post-dial delay, and the new connection is
admitted.
When we add one more media connection we'll end up with approximately
32 kbps per media connection and between 16 and 32 kbps for the TCP
connection. With the three TFRC and one TCP connection all jostling
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
with each other, some of the media streams will momentarily drop
below 32 kbps and need to switch to the low encoding rate. During
that time it's possible for the TCP application to get more than 32
kbps, but eventually things will even out again.
Adding a fourth media connection will leave approximately 25 kbps per
connection, forcing the media connections to all permanently switch
to the low encoding rate (with nominally 7 kbps of padding).
By the time we have six media connections (plus the one TCP
connection) we have reduced the per-connection bandwidth share to
just over 18 kbps. At this point some media connections are
discarding packets as the connections jostle for bandwidth and some
TFRC rates drop below 18 kbps.
If we try to introduce another media stream connection, reducing the
per-connection share further to 16 kbps, the new connection won't be
able to achieve a sufficient rate during the test period, and the
connection will be blocked. After a moment of packet discard in the
existing connections (during the probe period), things will return
back to the 18 kbps per-connection state. We won't be able to add a
new media connection until one of the existing connections
terminates.
But nothing prevents new TCP connections from being added. By the
time we have three more TCP connections (for a total of six media
connections and four TCP connections) per-connection share has
reduced to just under 13 kbps, and the media applications are
unusable. The TCP applications, although slow, are likely still
useable, and will continue a graceful decline as more TCP connections
are added.
2.9.4 Fairness
The model used above for the interactions of several TCP and TFRC
streams -- roughly equal sharing of the available capacity -- is of
course a highly simplified version of the real world interactions. A
more detailed discussion is presented in [EQCC], however, it seems
that the model used here is adequate for the purpose.
The behavior described above seems to be eminently fair to TCP
applications -- a TCP connection gets the same (or more) bandwidth
over a congested link that it would get if there were only other TCP
connections.
The behavior also seems fair to the network. It avoids persistent
packet loss in the network, as occurs in the behavior model in
[IABCONG], by discarding media data at the transmitter.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
Just how fair this is to media applications is debatable, but it
seems better than the method of feeding packets into the network
regardless of the congestion situation, but terminate if not enough
packets are delivered, as described in [IABCONG]. A media
application can choose to not start a connection, if at the moment
there are insufficient network resources. A media connection that
encounters major congestion after starting up can choose to wait out
the congestion, rather than terminate, since the excess packets are
discarded before entering the network. The application can perhaps
improve quality in a congested situation by discarding packets
intelligently, rather than allowing the network to discard randomly.
What the likelihood is of a user hanging on through this situation
depends on the length and severity of the incident.
3. Interactive Games
Another application area that could benefit from the use of DCCP is
real-time interactive, multi-player, on-line games. These games
usually consist of a set of clients (players) that display the game
environment to and take commands from a user, and a server computer
that maintains the entire game state. Massively Multi-Player (MMP)
games can use a grid of server computers connected in a peer-to-peer
fashion to distribute the game state computation and increase the
number of simultaneous players into the hundreds of thousands or even
millions [MMPGRID].
Communications between the various components (client-to-server,
server-to-client and server-to-server) usually take two forms.
Transient data would like to be delivered as soon as possible, but if
lost will be replaced by later data. For example, a player moving
through the game space will send a continuous stream of "move-to"
messages. If one is lost it isn't worth retransmitting -- the next
"move-to" message will give better information. On the other hand,
actions that represent permanent changes in the game state must be
reliably delivered (e.g., "you're-dead" messages).
It's important for the receiver to able to determine the sequence of
the received data, although data received out of order should be
delivered immediately, without waiting for the missing data. If two
"move-to" messages are reordered it's important to know which one was
sent first for the object to end up in the right location, but if the
two moves are delivered out of order the late one can be discarded.
Messages are often given an application-layer header, which usually
includes sequence numbers and reliability requirements. Each message
is usually encapsulated in a single UDP packet and transient
information is transmitted in fire-and-forget mode. Persistent data
requires an acknowledgement from the receiver, and a retransmit timer
at the sender.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
The devices would like to transmit their state changes as frequently
as possible, as this leads to smoother rendering of the changes at
the user display. However, a device can often generate data faster
than the network or receiver can handle it, so some rate limits must
be applied. Many applications handle this by simply setting a peak
data rate limit, rather than dynamically responding to network
conditions.
If DCCP were used instead of UDP, a multi-player game application
could offload much of work required for the functions of rate
limiting, partial reliability and sequencing.
3.1 Rate Limiting
The main purpose of DCCP is to provide congestion control for
unreliable streams -- to not only limit the transmit rate of an
application in times of congestion, but to also provide the
application with the most throughput it's entitled to. Congestion
control is difficult to get right, and many application-level
implementations greatly simplify things, often leading to various
inefficiencies. As mentioned above, many applications simply set a
peak data rate limit. This makes extra capacity unavailable, and
causes unnecessary congestion in the network when sufficient capacity
isn't available.
By using DCCP, a multi-player game application could completely
offload congestion control considerations, and benefit from a much
more complete implementation than would normally be provided at the
application layer, including support for ECN and the ability to use
all of the available bandwidth. The application's flow control
algorithm could be to simply write a message whenever the DCCP socket
is ready. DCCP would manage probing the network for available
capacity and backing off in the presence of network congestion or
server load (via the slow receiver indications).
The CCID to use would depend on tradeoffs between smoothness and
throughput. CCID3 would provide less dramatic changes in the rate of
state transmissions (and receptions), perhaps eliminating abrupt
changes in the display update rate. CCID2 would more rapidly consume
available capacity, perhaps leading to noticeable changes in the
update rate, but more updates at the peak.
3.1.1 Idleness Problems
Often the amount of data that needs to be transmitted depends on the
amount of user activity at a given point. When the user is idle,
little needs to be sent. When the user is active, a great deal can
be sent. Often the transition between these two states is immediate.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
Even though it has long been known to be harmful for the Internet
[CONGAVOID], one of the simplifications often made by applications
implementing congestion control is to ignore the issues of fast
startup or restart after idle. Often these applications simply start
transmitting immediately at a high rate, without ramping up.
The DCCP congestion control algorithms enforce slow-start and
restart. For applications used to ignoring these issues, however,
this could lead to unexpected behavior. In particular, the
application could appear less responsive to quick shifts in the
activity rate.
3.2 Partial Reliability
An application that implements reliability on top of UDP for some (or
all) of its packets must implement application level acknowledgements
and retransmit timers. The most efficient implementations of
retransmission timers take the current RTT into account. This is
often difficult to do at the application layer, so RTT is often
ignored in favor of a pre-configured value likely to be "large
enough". This can lead to long delays in the face of lost packets.
Although DCCP doesn't implement retransmissions, the nature of
congestion control forces it to implement most of what is required
for reliable delivery. An application using DCCP could simplify (and
improve) its implementation of reliability by offloading some of the
functions to DCCP.
By its nature, congestion control must know if packets are lost. For
CCID2, which requires the use of the Ack Vector option, it even knows
specifically which packets are lost. If a DCCP implementation were
to make this information available to an application, it could ease
the burden of implementing reliability.
Say, for example, that a DCCP allowed the application to request
delivery indication for certain packets. DCCP would inform the
application when either the packet was acknowledged, or DCCP had
decided that the packet was dropped. The application would need to
save the packet for retransmission, but it wouldn't need to maintain
a retransmission timer or implement application-layer
acknowledgements.
Because DCCP maintains connection state, such as current RTT, it can
often make this decision more efficiently than the application. By
tying the retransmission timeout to the current RTT, lost packets can
be retransmitted sooner, with less chance of unneeded
retransmissions. In addition, application layer acknowledgements
would often be redundant with DCCP acknowledgements.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
When CCID3 is used, the application could request the use of Ack
Vector options and receive the same service. On the other hand, the
normal use in CCID3 of the Loss Event Rate option might provide
sufficient information. In this case the reliable packets would be
considered delivered if there were no losses in the interval that
contained the packet, and not delivered if there were losses. This
might lead to some unnecessary retransmissions, but the
acknowledgement savings (Loss Event Rate options are smaller and
simpler to deal with than Ack Vector options) might make up for it.
3.3 Sequence Numbers
Game applications using UDP normally include sequence numbers in
their application headers to allow the receiver to detect packet
reordering. These application layer sequence numbers would often be
redundant with the DCCP sequence numbers. If a DCCP application made
the DCCP sequence numbers available to receiving applications, the
application could determine the transmission order. Note that, since
DCCP sequence numbers increase for Ack packets as well as Data
packets, the application wouldn't be able to infer missing packets
from holes in the delivered sequence.
4. Miscellaneous Capabilities
This section covers DCCP capabilities not covered earlier that might
be unfamiliar to a developer accustomed to UDP communications.
4.1 Path MTU Discovery
DCCP mandates the use of Path Maximum Transfer Unit (PMTU) discovery.
In general, an application will not be allowed to transmit a packet
larger than the currently known PMTU (or the maximum packet size
allowed by the CCID in effect). Applications can be allowed to
override this restriction (at least for PMTU) and send packets larger
than the PMTU (but not larger than the CCID maximum). These large
packets will of course be fragmented as they travel through the
network. However, since most applications would like to avoid
fragmenting packets, the default DCCP behavior fits nicely.
UDP applications that wish to avoid packet fragmentation usually
limit the size of their packets to 576 bytes, even though most
connection paths can support much larger sizes. With PMTU discovery
in DCCP, larger packet sizes can be used safely.
PMTU discovery in DCCP is based on the use of ICMP "packet too big"
messages, as defined in [RFC 1911]. The PMTU is initially set to the
MTU of the first-hop interface. Transmitted packets have the "don't
fragment" bit set in the IP header. If an interface with a lower MTU
is encountered, the router sends an ICMP Destination Unreachable
message, with cause set to "fragmentation needed and DF set", to the
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 21]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
originator (colloquially referred to as a "packet too big" message).
When the originating DCCP receives the packet too big message, it
adjusts the PMTU according to [RFC 1911].
Of course the packet that caused the packet too big message will be
dropped, and since DCCP provides an unreliable service, it won't be
retransmitted. There are also several other known issues with [RFC
1911]-style PMTU discovery (e.g., some firewalls block incoming ICMP
messages). Applications that would like to use the biggest packets
possible might want to consider an application-level supplement to
DCCP's PMTU discovery (e.g, send an initial packet stream in various
sizes and choose packet size based on the largest packet acknowledged
by the receiver).
DCCP implementations should consider providing this procedure for
applications, based on sending gratuitous DCCP-Sync packets padded
out to various sizes with Padding Options. The receiving DCCP will
acknowledge the DCCP-Sync packets that got through (with normal-sized
DCCP-Sync packets of its own), and the PMTU can be set to the largest
acknowledged packet.
4.2 Mobility and Multihoming
DCCP supports the ability to change the location of a connection
endpoint (IP address and port) during the connection. This
capability provides simple support for mobile hosts or high-
availability applications. The use of mobility must be negotiated at
connection setup, but the set of possible new addresses is not
constrained at that time.
When an endpoint would like to move, it sends a DCCP-Move packet.
The source address in the IP header is the new address, and the
source port in the DCCP header is the new port. The packet also
includes values for Mobility ID and Identification Option that were
negotiated at connection setup. If the other end accepts the change
it sends a DCCP-Ack to the new address/port; otherwise it sends a
DCCP-Ack to the old address/port. The DCCP-Move packet also may
include user data, but usually data transfer is interrupted until the
move is complete. An endpoint may move any number of times during a
connection. However, after each move, a new Mobility ID must be
negotiated.
4.3 Partial Checksums and Payload Checksums
Applications that would rather receive corrupted data than have it
discarded by the network can use the DCCP partial checksum
capability. This capability allows the sender to specify how much of
the user data should be covered by the DCCP header checksum. Options
include all of the user data, none, or up to 14 32-words (this final
option is considered experimental). DCCP implementations should
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 22]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
allow senders to specify the checksum coverage per packet and allow
receivers to specify the minimum checksum coverage they'd like to
receive. Defaults for both of these values should be to cover all
data.
Of course this is really only useful if there are link layers that
detect that a DCCP packet is being sent and provide strong error
checking only for the portion of the packet covered by the DCCP
checksum. Only time will tell if any link layers will implement
this.
Applications that would like greater protection on their data than
the Internet checksum provides can use the Payload Checksum option.
This option contains a CRC-32 checksum of the payload data only.
4.4 ECN Support
DCCP supports the use of Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC 3168].
ECN allows routers to mark packets that have experienced congestion,
rather than drop them. This provides DCCP with the capability to
adjust to network resources before packets are lost. This capability
is usually impossible to implement at the application layer, due to
kernel restraints often imposed on setting and receiving ECN-marks in
packets.
4.5 Slow Receiver Option
The Slow Receiver Option is sent by a DCCP when the receiving
application indicates that it is unable to keep up with the incoming
data rate. A DCCP that receives a Slow Receiver Option is required
to not increase its sending rate for one RTT, and should indicate to
its application that the option has been received.
This perhaps can be used by applications as a lightweight
application-level flow control. If application data needs to be
paced outside of congestion control, an overflow at the receiver can
be communicated back with the Slow Receiver Option, instead of using
an entire application-level message. Upon receiving a Slow Receiver
Option, the transmitting application can make whatever adjustment is
necessary. The application will of course be constrained by the
requirement on DCCP to not allow the transmit rate to increase for
one RTT.
4.6 Detecting Lost Application Data
In general, DCCP knows when packets are lost, but since data and
acknowledgment packets use the same sequence number space, it can't
tell whether or not application data has been lost. Applications
that want to detect data loss at the receiver could implement their
own application-layer sequence numbers for this purpose, but the DCCP
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 23]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
NDP Count Feature and Option could allow the application to push this
to DCCP.
When the NDP (stands for Non-Data Packets) Count Feature is in use,
DCCP sends an NDP Count Option on every packet whose immediate
predecessor was a non-data packet (mostly DCCP-Acks). With the NDP
Count Options, the receiving DCCP can determine whether or not a hole
in the received sequence numbers represents lost data. The receiving
DCCP could then inform the application that data was lost.
Note that another use for application-layer sequence numbers is to
reorder packets received out of transmission order. However, as
mentioned in section 3.3, the DCCP sequence numbers are adequate for
this.
5. Security Considerations
DCCP includes several non-cryptographic security features designed to
limit vulnerability to some common Denial of Service (DoS) and other
attacks. In UDP-based applications these capabilities would need to
be implemented at the application layer, but are often ignored.
To insert packets into a DCCP connection, an attacker must guess
proper sequence numbers. With randomly chosen initial sequence
numbers, an attacker must snoop the connection to have any reasonable
chance of success. Other mechanisms (such as ignoring invalid DCCP-
Move packets) prevent leakage of information to attackers.
To hijack a connection (with DCCP-Move packets), an attacker must
know the Mobility ID and Identification Option in use. Again,
without snooping the connection, there is little chance of guessing
these accurately.
The Init Cookie Option allows a server to delay holding state for a
connection until the client has proved its aliveness. Basically, the
server responds to a DCCP-Request packet with a DCCP-Response packet
that contains an Init Cookie Option. This Init Cookie Option wraps
up all information necessary for the connection to proceed in an
encrypted and authenticated package. After sending the DCCP-
Response, the server needn't remember that a connection handshake is
in progress. The client responds to the DCCP-Response with a DCCP-
Ack that includes the Init Cookie. The server can then instantiate
the necessary connection state.
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA actions required for this document.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 24]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
7. Thanks
Thanks to Damon Lanphear for the original, API-centric, version of
the user guide, the AVT working group, especially Philippe Gentric
and Brian Rosen, for comments on the streaming-media-centric earlier
version of this, Bart Whitebrook and Vladimir Moltchanov for
information on game programming, and Jukka Manner for comments.
8. Informative References
[DCCP] E. Kohler, M. Handley, S. Floyd, J. Padhye, Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), February 2004, draft-
ietf-dccp-spec-06.txt, work in progress.
[CCID2] S. Floyd, E. Kohler, Profile for DCCP Congestion Control
2: TCP-Like Congestion Control, February 2004, draft-
ietf-dccp-ccid2-05.txt, work in progress.
[CCID3] S. Floyd, E. Kohler, J. Padhye, Profile for DCCP
Congestion Control 3: TFRC Congestion Control, February
2004, draft-ietf-dccp-ccid3-04.txt, work in progress.
[RFC 3448] M. Handley, S. Floyd, J. Padhye, J. Widmer, TCP Friendly
Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification, RFC 3448.
[RFC 768] J. Postel, User Datagram Protocol, August 1980, RFC 768.
[IABCONG] S. Floyd, J, Kempf, IAB Concerns Regarding Congestion for
Voice Traffic in the Internet, October 2003, draft-iab-
congestion-01.txt, work in progress.
[SWITCH] P. Gentric, RTSP Stream Switching, January 2004, draft-
gentric-mmusic-stream-switching-01.txt, work in progress.
[RFC 3261] J. Rosenberg, et al, SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,
June 2002, RFC 3261
[EQCC] S. Floyd, M. Handley, J. Padhye, J. Widmer, Equation-
Based Congestion Control For Unicast Applications: the
Extended Version, March 2000, International Computer
Science Institute, http://www.icir.org/tfrc/tcp-
friendly.TR.pdf
[MMPGRID] Butterfly.net: Powering Next-Generation Gaming with
Computing On-Demand,
http://www.butterfly.net/platform/technology/idc.pdf
[CONGAVOID] V. Jacobson, M. Karels, Congestion Avoidance and Control,
November 1988, ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.ps.Z
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 25]
INTERNET-DRAFT DCCP User Guide July 2004
[RFC 1911] J. Mogul, S. Deering, Path MTU Discovery, February 1996,
RFC 1911
[RFC 3168] K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, D. Black, The addition of
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP, September
2001, RFC 3168
[RFC 3517] E. Blanton, M. Allman, K. Fall, L. Wang, A Conservative
Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery
Algorithm for TCP, April 2003, RFC 3517
[RFC 3550] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson,
RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications,
July 2003, RFC 3550
[XTIME] ITU-T: Series G: Transmission Systems and Media, Digital
Systems and Networks, Recommendation G.114, One-way
Transmission Time, May 2000
9. Author's Address
Tom Phelan
Sonus Networks
5 Carlisle Rd.
Westford, MA USA 01886
Phone: 978-681-8456
Email: tphelan@sonusnet.com
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright ¨ The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except
as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Phelan Expires - January 2005 [Page 26]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 13:14:06 |