One document matched: draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt
Differences from draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-00.txt
Internet Engineering Task Force Yogesh Swami
INTERNET DRAFT Khiem Le
File: draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt Nokia Research Center
Dallas
Apr 2003
Expires: Oct 2003
DCLOR: De-correlated Loss Recovery using SACK option
for spurious timeouts.
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of [RFC2026].
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract
A spurious timeout in TCP forces the sender to unnecessarily
retransmit one complete congestion window of data into the network.
In addition, TCP uses the rate of arrival of ACKs as the basic
criterion for congestion control. TCP makes the assumption that the
rate at which ACKs are received reflects the end-to-end state of the
network in terms of congestion. But after a spurious-timeout, the
ACKs don't reflect the end-to-end congestion state of the network,
but only a part of it. In these cases, the slow-start behavior after
a timeout can further add to network congestion. In this draft we
propose changes to the TCP sender (no change is needed for TCP
receiver) that can be used to solve the problem of both redundant-
retransmission and network congestion after a spurious timeout.
Expires: Oct 2003 [Page 1]
draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt Apr 2003
1. Introduction
The response of a TCP sender after a retransmission timeout is
governed by the underlying assumption that a mid-stream timeout can
occur only if there is heavy congestion--manifested as packet
loss--in the network. Even though loss is often caused by congestion,
the loss recovery algorithm itself should only answer the question of
"what" data (i.e., what sequence number of data ) to send. While on
the other hand, the congestion control algorithm should answer the
question of "how much" data to send. But after a timeout, TCP
addresses the issues of loss recovery and congestion control using a
single mechanism--send one segment per round trip timeout (RTO)
(answers the "how much" question) until an acknowledgment is
received. The single segment sent is always the first unacknowledged
outstanding packet in the retransmission queue (answers the "what"
question). Since the present TCP's loss recovery and congestion
control algorithms are coupled together, we call this "Correlated
Loss Recovery (CLOR)."
Although the assumption that a timeout can occur only if there is
severe congestion is valid for traditional wire-line networks, it
does not hold good for some other types of networks--networks where
packets can be stalled "in the network" for a significant duration
without being discarded. Typical examples of such networks are
cellular networks. In cellular networks, the link layer can
experience a relatively long disruption due to errors, and the link
layer protocol can keep these packets-in-error buffered as long as
the link layer disruption lasts.
In this document we present an alternative approach to loss recovery
and congestion control that "De-Correlates" Loss Recovery from
congestion congestion and allows independent choice on using a
particular TCP sequence number without compromising on the congestion
control principles of [RFC2581][RFC2914][RFC2861].
Although several drafts [LM02][LG03][SK03][BA02] have been presented
on this topic, we believe that none of them fully considers all the
problems associated with spurious timeouts. In the following section
we first describe these problems in more detail and then describe the
DCLOR mechanism in section-3.
2. Problem Description.
Let us assume that a TCP sender has sent N packets, p(1) ... p(N),
into the network and it's waiting for the ACK of p(1) (Figure-1). Due
to bad network conditions or some other problem, these packets are
excessively delayed at some some intermediary node NDN. Unlike
standard IP routers, the NDN keeps these packets buffered for a
Expires: Oct 2003 [Page 2]
draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt Apr 2003
relatively long period of time until these packets are forwarded to
their intended recipient. This excessive delay forces the TCP sender
to timeout and enter slow start.
Figure-1
TCP-Sender NDN TCP-Receiver
..... |----p(1)------>| |
^ |----p(2)------>| |
: | . | |
RTT=D | . | |
: | . | |
..... |----p(N)------>| |
| ^ | |
| : | |
| RTO | |
| : | |
| V |----p(1)-->|
... |----p1(1)----->|<---a(1)---|...
L | | |
... |<----a(1)------|----p(2)-->|
|->p1(2),p1(3)->|<---a(2)---|...
| . | . |
| . | . |
| . | . |
| |<---a(N)---|
| |---p1(1)-->|
| |<---a(N)---|
| | |
As far as the sender is concerned, a timeout is always interpreted as
heavy congestion. The TCP sender therefore makes the assumption that
all packets between p(1) and p(N) were lost in the network. To
recover from this misconstrued loss, the TCP sender retransmits P1(1)
( Px(k) represents the xth retransmission of packet with sequence
number k), and waits for the ACK a(1).
After some period of time when the network conditions at NDN improve,
the queued in packets are finally dispatched to their intended
recipient; in response the TCP receiver generates the ACK a(1). When
the TCP sender receives a(1), it's fooled into believing that a(1)
was generated in response to the retransmitted packet p1(1), while in
reality a(1) was generated in response to the originally transmitted
packet p(1). When the sender receives a(1), it increases its
congestion window to two, and retransmits p1(2) and p1(3). As the
sender receives more acknowledgments, it continues with
Expires: Oct 2003 [Page 3]
draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt Apr 2003
retransmissions and finally starts sending new data.
The following two sub sections examine the problems associated with
the above-mentioned TCP behavior.
2.1 Redundant Data Retransmission
The obvious and relatively easy-to-solve inefficiency of the above
algorithm is that the entire congestion window worth of data is
unnecessarily retransmitted. Although such retransmissions are
harmless to high-bandwidth, well-provisioned, backbone links (so long
they are infrequent), it could severely degrade the performance of
slow links.
In cases where bandwidth is a commodity at a premium, (e.g., cellular
networks), unnecessary retransmission can also be costly.
2.2 Congestion after Spurious Timeout
To analyze network congestion after spurious timeout, we compute the
worst case scenario packet loss in the system--assuming only TCP
connections to be present.
After the spurious timeout, the TCP sender sets its SS_THRESH to N/2.
Therefore, for the first N/2 ACKs received (i.e., ACK a(1) to a(N/2)
), the TCP sender will grow its congestion window by one and reach
the SS_THRESH value of N/2. For each ACK received, the TCP sender
sends 2 packets. Therefore, by the end of the slow start, the TCP
sender would have sent 2*(N/2) packets into the network. For the
remaining N/2 ACKs (i.e., ACKs between a(N/2+1) to a(N)) the TCP
sender will remain in the congestion avoidance phase and send one
packet for each ACK received--sending N/2 more data segments. The net
amount of data sent is therefore N/2 + N = 3N/2.
Please note that the entire 3N/2 packets are injected into the
network within a time period less than or equal to RTT in most cases.
The number of data segments that left the network during this time is
only N. Therefore, N/2 packets out of 3N/2 packets will be lost with
a very high probability. These N/2 lost packets, however, need not
come from the same connection, and such a data-burst will
unnecessarily penalize all the competing TCP connections that share
the same bottleneck router.
Going further ahead, let us assume there are M competing TCP
connections that share the same bottleneck router(s) with
C(0)(Figure-2). During the period of time while C(0) is stalled, the
TCP sender of C(0) does not use its network resources--the buffer
space--on the bottleneck router(s). The competing connections,
Expires: Oct 2003 [Page 4]
draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt Apr 2003
C(1)... C(M), however see this lack of activity as resource
availability and start growing their window by at least one segment
per RTT during this time period (by virtue of linear window increase
during congestion avoidance phase). For simplicity reasons, we
assume that each of these connections has the same round trip time of
RTT, and the idle time for C(0) is k*RTT (where k > RTO/RTT). Under
these assumptions, each of these competing connections will increase
their congestion window by k segments. Therefore the amount of
packets lost in the network due to slow start can be as high as:
N/2 + M*k ... (4)
the first term in the above equation is the packet loss due to slow
start, while the second term is the loss due to window growth of
completing connections (if the competing connections were in slow
start the response could have been worse).
Figure-2
C(1) C(2)... C(M)
| | ... |
| | ... |
| | ... |
V V ... V
\ \ /
\ \ /
\ \ /
+------X--X--X---+ +------------------+
Defaulting | | | |
C(0) ----------->| Bottleneck |------>|Buffered packets |--->
connection | router | | |
+-----X--X----X--+ +------------------+
| | |
| | |
c(1)c(2) C(M)
Based on the above equation, we note that the congestion state of the
network depends upon the duration of spurious timeout. In our reponse
algorithm we therefore take the time duration of spurious timeout
into account reduce the data rate by half every RTO. Please note that
this scheme works well only when the number of competing connections
M does not vary too much while C(0) was stalled. A more conservative
response algorithm should reduce the data rate to INIT_WINDOW if M is
not bounded.
In the following sections we describe an algorithm that solves the
problem of both redundant retransmission and packet loss after a
spurious timeout.
Expires: Oct 2003 [Page 5]
draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt Apr 2003
3. De-correlated Loss Recovery (DCLOR)
The basic idea behind DCLOR is to send a new data segment from
outside the sender's retransmission queue and wait for the ACK or
SACK of the new data before initiating the response algorithm. Unlike
slow-start where the response algorithm starts immediately after
receiving the first ACK, DCLOR waits for the ACK/SACK of the new data
sent after timeout before initiating loss recovery. The SACK block
for new data contains sufficient information to determine all the
packets that were lost into the network. Once the sequence number of
lost packets is determined, the TCP sender grows its congestion
window as determined by the SS_THRESH and it's congestion window.
3.1 Probe phase after a timeout
The following steps describe the response of a TCP sender on a
timeout:
1. If the timeout occurs before the 3 way handshake is complete,
the TCP sender's behavior is unchanged,
2. After each timeout, the TCP sender MUST set its congestion
window to:
cwnd = max( cwnd >> 1, IINIT_WINDOW).
The value of SS_THRESH MUST be left UNCHANGED at this point. The
TCP sender should also count the number of packets in flight at
this time, and keep it in a state variable stale_outstanding.
3. The TCP sender SHOULD also reset all the SACK tag bits in its
retransmission queue if this the first timeout.
4. Instead of sending the first unacknowledged packet P1
after a timeout, the TCP sender should *disregard* its
congestion window and send ONE NEW MSS size data Pn+1.
The TCP sender should also store the sequence number of the new
segment in a new state variable called SS_PTR (for slow start
pointer).
If the sender does not have any new data outside its
retransmission queue, or if the receiver's flow control window
cannot sustain any new data, the TCP sender SHOULD send the
highest sequence numbered MSS sized data chunk from its
retransmission queue (i.e., it should send the last packet from
its retransmission queue).
Expires: Oct 2003 [Page 6]
draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt Apr 2003
5. A TCP sender MUST repeat step-2 to step-4 until it
enters the Timeout-Recovery state as described in step 6.
3.2 Congestion Control After the probe phase
6. For each ACK received with the ACK-sequence number
less than SS_PTR, regardless of the value of the SS_THRESH, the
TCP sender SHOULD NOT grow it's congestion window. If the ACK
contains a new SACK block, the SACK tag SHOULD be set in the
corresponding data packet. If new segments were ACKed, and the
congestion window allows, the TCP sender SHOULD send new data.
(Note: the idea here is that the congestion window should not be
grown in response to stale ACKs since these ACKs don't reflect
the end to end state of the network).
In addition, the TCP sender SHOULD NOT take any timer sample for
the stale ACKs. (NOTE: We do not attempt to change the RTT
calculation in an ad-hoc manner; we believe that this is a
reaseach problem that needs better network modelling before an
appropriate timer calculation can be found)
7. Step-6 continues until the TCP sender receives an
ACK acking a sequence number greater than SS_PTR, or it receives
a SACK block covering the sequence number greater than SS_PTR.
If the sender receives a SACK block containing SS_PTR, i.e., if
there is a packet loss in the stalled window, it SHOULD go to
step-8.
If the sender receives an ACK that acknowledges SS_PTR, i.e., if
no packets were lost from the stalled window, it SHOULD go to
step-10.
NOTE: In our previous experiments we had set the congestion window
to one MSS after a spurious timeout, however this algorithm prerforms
better if there is moderate load on the routers and the number of
competing connections do not vary a lot duing the stalling period. In
case of heavy load, setting the congestion window to INIT_WINDOW
still performs better. We believe that using the present congestion
response make a fair compromise for different scenarios.
3.3 Timeout-Recovery: recovering lost packets after timeout
8. The TCP sender traverses the retransmission queue and marks
all the packets without any SACK tag as lost. The TCP sender
also updates its packets-in-flight (pipe) based on the SACK tags
and the lost segment information (the packets-in-flight (pipe)
should be ZERO after the update).
Expires: Oct 2003 [Page 7]
draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt Apr 2003
Please note that unlike Fast-Retransmit and Fast-recovery, DCLOR
uses only one SACK block containing SS_PTR to mark packets as
lost. This is because we do not expect packet reordering to
exist over the period of RTO.
9. The TCP sender should update its SS_THRESH, as:
SS_THRESH= stale_outstanding >> 1 (step-2)
10. The TCP sender SHOULD set its congestion window to cwnd+1.
If packets were lost into the network (i.e., if a SACK for
SS_PTR was received), the TCP sender should start by sending
packets with lowest sequence number; else it should continue
with new data. (Note: for each new SACK block received, the
sender should send a segment--lost or new--and therefore the
problem of duplicate ACKs is not of concern here.)
The sender should follow the normal window growth strategy based
on the value of SS_THRESH after this step.
Please note that with a pure ACK acknowledging SS_PTR, the TCP sender
does not update the SS_THRESH value (it directly enters step-10 from
step-7). This prevents a TCP sender from setting its SS_THRESH to a
very small values if the spurious timeout occurs at the start of the
connection.
4. Data Delivery To Upper Layers
If a TCP sender loses its entire congestion window worth of data,
sending new data after timeout prevents a TCP receiver from
forwarding the new data to the upper layers immediately. However,
once the SACK for this new data is received, the TCP sender will send
the first lost segment. This essentially means that data delivery to
the upper layers could be delayed by at most one RTT when all the
packets are lost in the network.
This, however, does not affect the throughput of the connection in
any way. If a timeout has occurred, then the data delivery to the
upper layers has already been excessively delayed. Delaying it by
another round trip is not a serious problem. Please note that
reliability and timeliness are two conflicting issues and one cannot
gain on one without sacrificing something else on the other.
5. Security Considerations
The TCP SACK information is meant to be advisory, and a TCP receiver
is allowed--though strongly discouraged--to discard data blocks the
receiver has already SACKed [RFC2018]. Please note however that even
Expires: Oct 2003 [Page 8]
draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt Apr 2003
if the TCP sender discards the data block it received, it MUST still
send the SACK block for at least the recent most data received.
Therefore in spite of SACK reneging, DCLOR will work without any
deadlocks.
A SACK implementation is also allowed not to send a SACK block even
though the TCP sender and receiver might have agreed to SACK-
Permitted option at the start of the connection. In these cases,
however, if the receiver sends one SACK block, it must send SACK
blocks for the rest of the connection. Because of the above mentioned
leniency in implementation, its possible that a TCP receiver may
agree on SACK-Permitted option, and yet not send any SACK blocks. To
make DCLOR robust under these circumstances, DCLOR SHOULD NOT be
invoked unless the sender has seen at least one SACK block before
timeout. We, however, believe that once the SACK-Permitted option is
accepted, the TCP sender MUST send a SACK block--even though that
block might finally be discarded. Otherwise, the SACK-Permitted
option is completely redundant and serves little purpose. To the best
of our knowledge, almost all SACK implementations send a SACK block
if they have accepted the SACK-Permitted option.
6. References
[RFC2581] M. Allman, V. Paxson, W. Stevens. "TCP Congestion
Control," Apr, 1999.
[RFC2914] S. Floyd, "Congestion Control Principles," Sep 2002.
[RFC2861] M. Handley, J. Padhye, S. Floyd. "TCP Congestion
Window Validation," Jun 2000.
[BAFW03] E. Blanton, M. Allman, K. Fall, L. Wang, "Conservative
SACK-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP," draft-
allman-tcp-sack-13.txt. Internet draft; work in progress.
Oct 2002.
[RFC2018] M. Mathis, J. Mahdavi, S. Floyd, A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options," Oct 1996.
[RFC2883] S. Floyd, J. Mahdavi, M. Mathis, M. Podolsky, "An
Extension to the Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) Option
for TCP," Jul 2000.
[LM02] R. Ludwig, M. Meyer. "The Eiffel Detection Algorithm
for TCP." Internet draft; work in progress, draft-ietf-
tsvwg-tcp-eifel-alg-07.txt, Dec 2002.
Expires: Oct 2003 [Page 9]
draft-swami-tsvwg-tcp-dclor-01.txt Apr 2003
[LG03] R. Ludwig, A. Gurtov, "The Eifel Response Algorithm for
TCP." Internet draft; work in progress, draft-ietf-tsvwg-
tcp-eifel-response-03.txt, Mar 2003.
[SK03] P. Sarolahti, M. Kojo. "F-RTO: A TCP RTO Recovery
Algorithm for Avoiding Unnecessary Retransmissions."
Internet draft; work in progress. draft-sarolahti-tsvwg-
tcp-frto-03.txt, Jan 2003.
[RFC2988] V. Paxon, M. Allman. "Computing TCP's Retransmission
Timer," Nov 2000.
[BA02] E. Blanton, M. Allman, "Using TCP DSACKs and SCTP
Duplicate TSNs to Detect Spurious Retransmissions,"
Internet draft; work in progress, draft-blanton-dsack-
use-02.txt, Oct 2002.
7. IPR Statement
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
document. For more information consult the on-line list of claimed
rights at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
Author's Address:
Yogesh Prem Swami Khiem Le
Nokia Research Center Nokia Research Center
6000 Connection Drive 6000 Connection Drive
Irving TX-75063 Irving TX-75063
USA USA
Phone: +1 972-374-0669 Phone: +1 972-894-4882
Email: yogesh.swami@nokia.com Email: khiem.le@nokia.com
Expires: Oct 2003 [Page 10]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 19:14:13 |