[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 07

Internet Engineering Task Force                              Mark Allman
INTERNET DRAFT                                                      ICSI
File: draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-04.txt         Konstantin Avrachenkov
                                                                   INRIA
                                                            Urtzi Ayesta
                                                               LAAS-CNRS
                                                            Josh Blanton
                                                         Ohio University
                                                           November 2006
                                                      Expires: May, 2007


                   Early Retransmit for TCP and SCTP

Status of this Memo

    By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
    applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
    have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
    aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

    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.

Copyright Notice

    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).


Abstract

    This document proposes a new mechanism for TCP and SCTP that can be
    used to recover lost segments when a connection's congestion window
    is small.  The "Early Retransmit" mechanism allows the transport to
    reduce, in certain special circumstances, the number of duplicate
    acknowledgments required to trigger a fast retransmission.  This
    allows the transport to use fast retransmit to recover packet losses
    that would otherwise require a lengthy retransmission timeout.

Terminology

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

Expires: May 2007                                               [Page 1]


draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-04.txt                        November 2006

    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1   Introduction

    Many researchers have studied problems with TCP [RFC793,RFC2581]
    when the congestion window is small and have outlined possible
    mechanisms to mitigate these problems
    [Mor97,BPS+98,Bal98,LK98,RFC3150,AA02].  SCTP's [RFC2960] loss
    recovery and congestion control mechanisms are based on TCP and
    therefore the same problems impact the performance of SCTP
    connections.  When the transport detects a missing segment, the
    connection enters a loss recovery phase.  There are several variants
    of the loss recovery phase depending on a TCP's version.  TCP can
    use slow start based recovery or Fast Recovery [RFC2581], NewReno
    [RFC2582], and loss recovery based on selective acknowledgments
    (SACKs) [RFC2018,FF96,RFC3517].  SCTP's loss recovery is not as
    varied due to the built-in selective acknowledgments.

    All the above variants have two methods for loss recovery.  First,
    if an acknowledgment (ACK) for a given segment is not received in a
    certain amount of time a retransmission timer fires and the segment
    is resent [RFC2988,RFC2960].  Second, the ``Fast Retransmit''
    algorithm resends a segment when three duplicate ACKs arrive at the
    sender [Jac88,RFC2581].  Duplicate ACKs are triggered by
    out-of-order arrivals at the receiver.  However, because duplicate
    ACKs from the receiver are triggered by both packet loss and packet
    reordering in the network path, the sender waits for three duplicate
    ACKs in an attempt to disambiguate packet loss from packet
    reordering.  When using small congestion windows it may not be
    possible to generate the required number of duplicate ACKs to
    trigger Fast Retransmit when a loss does happen.

    Small windows can occur in a number of situations, such as:

    (1) The connection is constrained by end-to-end congestion control
        when the connection's share of the path is small, the path has a
        small bandwidth-delay product or the transport is ascertaining
        the available bandwidth in the first few round-trip times of
        slow start.

    (2) The connection is "application limited" and has only a limited
        amount of data to send.  This can happen any time the
        application does not produce enough data to fill the congestion
        window.  A particular case when all connections become
        application limited is as the connection ends.

    (3) The connection is limited by the receiver's advertised window.

    The transport's retransmission timeout (RTO) is based on measured
    round-trip times (RTT) between the sender and receiver, as specified
    in [RFC2988] (for TCP) and [RFC2960] (for SCTP).  To prevent
    spurious retransmissions of segments that are only delayed and not
    lost, the minimum RTO is conservatively chosen to be 1 second.

Expires: May 2007                                               [Page 2]


draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-04.txt                        November 2006

    Therefore, it behooves TCP senders to detect and recover from as
    many losses as possible without incurring a lengthy timeout during
    which the connection remains idle.  However, if not enough duplicate
    ACKs arrive from the receiver, the Fast Retransmit algorithm is
    never triggered---this situation occurs when the congestion window
    is small, if a large number of segments in a window are lost or at
    the end of a transfer as data drains from the network.  For
    instance, consider a congestion window (cwnd) of three segments.  If
    one segment is dropped by the network, then at most two duplicate
    ACKs will arrive at the sender, assuming no ACK loss.  Since three
    duplicate ACKs are required to trigger Fast Retransmit, a timeout
    will be required to resend the dropped packet.

    [BPS+98] shows that roughly 56% of retransmissions sent by a busy
    web server are sent after the RTO timer expires, while only 44% are
    handled by Fast Retransmit.  In addition, only 4% of the RTO
    timer-based retransmissions could have been avoided with SACK, which
    has to continue to disambiguate reordering from genuine loss.
    Furthermore, [All00] shows that for one particular web server the
    median transfer size is less than four segments, indicating that
    more than half of the connections will be forced to rely on the RTO
    timer to recover from any losses that occur.  Thus, loss recovery
    that does not rely on the conservative RTO is beneficial for short
    TCP transfers.

    The Limited Transmit mechanism introduced in [RFC3042] allows a TCP
    sender to transmit previously unsent data upon the reception of each
    of the two duplicate ACKs that precede a Fast Retransmit.  SCTP
    [RFC2960] uses SACK information to calculate the number of
    outstanding segments in the network.  Hence, when the first two
    duplicate ACKs arrive at the sender they will indicate that data has
    left the network and allow the sender to transmit new data (if
    available) similar to TCP's Limited Transmit algorithm.

    By sending these two new segments the TCP sender is attempting to
    induce additional duplicate ACKs (if appropriate) so that Fast
    Retransmit will be triggered before the retransmission timeout
    expires.  The "Early Retransmit" mechanism outlined in this document
    covers the case when previously unsent data is not available for
    transmission or cannot be transmitted due to an advertised window
    limitation.

    Section 2 of this document outlines a small change to TCP and SCTP
    senders that will decrease the reliance on the retransmission timer,
    and thereby improve performance when Fast Retransmit cannot
    otherwise be triggered.  Section 3 discusses related work.  Section
    4 sketches security issues.

2   Early Retransmit Algorithm

    The Early Retransmit algorithm calls for lowering the threshold for
    triggering Fast Retransmit when the amount of outstanding data is
    small and when no previously unsent data can be transmitted.  We
    define variants of Early Retransmit for connections that do and do

Expires: May 2007                                               [Page 3]


draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-04.txt                        November 2006

    not support selective acknowledgments (SACK) [RFC2018].  (Note: SCTP
    includes SACK in the base protocol and so there is no need for the
    non-SACK variant of Early Retransmit in SCTP.)

    A non-SACK TCP sender MAY use Early Retransmit.  Such a sender MUST
    use the following two rules to determine when an Early Retransmit is
    sent:

    (2.a) The amount of outstanding data (ownd)---data sent but not yet
        acknowledged---is less than 4*SMSS bytes.

    (2.b) There is either no unsent data ready for transmission at the
        sender or the advertised window does not permit new segments to
        be transmitted.

    When the above two conditions hold, the connection does not support
    SACK, and the connection wishes to use Early Retransmit, the
    duplicate ACK threshold used to trigger Fast Retransmit MUST be
    reduced to:

                  ER_thresh = ceiling (ownd/SMSS) - 1                 (1)

    duplicate ACKs, where ownd is in terms of bytes.

    When conditions (2.a) and (2.b) do not hold, the transport MUST NOT
    use Early Retransmit, but rather prefer the standard mechanisms
    (including Limited Transmit [RFC3042]).

    When conditions (2.a) and (2.b) hold and the connection does support
    SACK, Early Retransmit MUST be used only when "ownd - SMSS" bytes
    have been SACKed.

    In other words, when ownd is small enough that losing one segment
    would not trigger Fast Retransmit, the trigger for Fast Retransmit
    is reduced to receiving indications that all but one segment have
    arrived at the receiver.

3   Discussion

    The SACK variant of the Early Retransmit algorithm is preferred to
    the non-SACK variant due to its robustness in the face of ACK loss
    (since SACKs are sent redundantly) and due to interactions with the
    delayed ACK timer.  Consider a flight of three segments, S1...S3,
    with S2 being dropped by the network.  When S1 arrives it is
    in-order and so the receiver may or may not delay the ACK, leading
    to two scenarios:

    (A) The ACK for S1 is delayed.  In this case the arrival of S3 will
        trigger an ACK to be transmitted covering segment S1 (which was
        previously unacknowledged).  In this case Early Retransmit
        without SACK will not prevent an RTO because no duplicate ACKs
        will arrive.  However, with SACK the ACK for S1 will also
        include SACK information indicating that S3 has arrived at the
        receiver.  The sender can then invoke Fast Retransmit on this

Expires: May 2007                                               [Page 4]


draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-04.txt                        November 2006

        ACK because ownd - SMSS bytes have been SACKed when the ACK
        arrives.

    (B) The ACK for S1 is not delayed.  In this case the arrival of S1
        triggers an ACK of previously unacknowledged data.  The arrival
        of S3 triggers a duplicate ACK (because it is out-of-order).
        Both ACKs will cover the same segment (S1).  Therefore,
        regardless of whether SACK is used Early Retransmit can be
        performed by the sender (assuming no ACK loss).

    Early Retransmit is less robust in the face of reordered segments
    than when using the standard Fast Retransmit threshold.  Research
    shows that a general reduction in the number of duplicate ACKs
    required to trigger Fast Retransmit to two (rather than three) leads
    to a reduction in the ratio of good to bad retransmits by a factor
    of three [Pax97].  However, this analysis did not include the
    additional conditioning on the event that the ownd was smaller than
    4 segments and that no new data was available for transmission.

    A number of studies have shown that network reordering is not a rare
    event across some network paths.  Various measurement studies have
    shown that reordering along most paths is negligible, but along
    certain paths can be quite prevalent [Pax97,BPS99,BS02,Pir05].
    Evaluating Early Retransmit in the face of real packet reordering is
    part of the experiment we hope to instigate with this document.

    Next, we note two "worst case" scenarios for Early Retransmit:

    (1) Persistent reordering of segments, coupled with an application
        that does not constantly send data, can result in large numbers
        of needless retransmissions when using Early Retransmit.  For
        instance, consider an application that sends data two segments
        at a time, followed by an idle period when no data is queued for
        delivery by TCP.  If the network consistently reorders the two
        segments, the sender will needlessly retransmit one out of every
        two unique segments transmitted when using the above algorithm
        (meaning that one-third of all segments sent are needless
        retransmissions).  However, this would only be a problem for
        long-lived connections from applications that transmit in
        spurts.

    (2) Similar to the above, consider the case of 2 segment transfers
        that always experience reordering.  Just as in (1) above, one
        out of every two unique data segments will be retransmitted
        needlessly, therefore one-third of the traffic will be spurious.

    Currently this document offers no suggestion on how to mitigate the
    above problems.  However, the worst cases are likely pathological
    and part of the experiments that this document hopes to trigger
    would involve better understanding of whether such theoretical worst
    case scenarios are prevalent in the network and in general to
    explore the tradeoff between spurious fast retransmits and the delay
    imposed by the RTO.  Appendix A does offer a survey of possible
    mitigations.

Expires: May 2007                                               [Page 5]


draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-04.txt                        November 2006


4   Related Work

    Deployment of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [Flo94,RFC3168]
    may benefit connections with small congestion window sizes
    [RFC2884].  ECN provides a method for indicating congestion to the
    end-host without dropping segments.  While some segment drops may
    still occur, ECN may allow TCP to perform better with small cwnd
    sizes because the sender will be required to detect less segment
    loss [RFC2884].

    [Bal98] outlines another solution to the problem of having no new
    segments to transmit into the network when the first two duplicate
    ACKs arrive.  In response to these duplicate ACKs, a TCP sender
    transmits zero-byte segments to induce additional duplicate ACKs.
    This method preserves the robustness of the standard Fast Retransmit
    algorithm at the cost of injecting segments into the network that do
    not deliver any data (and, therefore are potentially wasting network
    resources).

5   Security Considerations

    The security considerations found in [RFC2581] apply to this
    document.  No additional security problems have been identified with
    Early Retransmit at this time.

Acknowledgments

    We thank Sally Floyd for her feedback in discussions about Early
    Retransmit.  We also thank Sally Floyd and Hari Balakrishnan who
    helped with a large portion of the text of this document when it was
    part of a separate document.  Armando Caro and many members of the
    tsvwg mailing list provided good discussions that helped shape this
    document.

Normative References

    [RFC793] Jon Postel.  Transmission Control Protocol.  Std 7, RFC
        793.  September 1981.

    [RFC2018] Matt Mathis, Jamshid Mahdavi, Sally Floyd, Allyn Romanow.
        TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options.  RFC 2018, October 1996.

    [RFC2581] Mark Allman, Vern Paxson, W. Richard Stevens.  TCP
        Congestion Control.  RFC 2581, April 1999.

    [RFC2883] Sally Floyd, Jamshid Mahdavi, Matt Mathis, Matt Podolsky.
        An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option for
        TCP.  RFC 2883, July 2000.

    [RFC2960] R. Stewart, Q. Xie, K. Morneault, C. Sharp, H.
        Schwarzbauer, T. Taylor, I. Rytina, M. Kalla, L. Zhang, V.
        Paxson.  Stream Control Transmission Protocol.  October 2000.


Expires: May 2007                                               [Page 6]


draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-04.txt                        November 2006

    [RFC2988] Vern Paxson, Mark Allman. Computing TCP's Retransmission
        Timer.  RFC 2988, April 2000.

    [RFC3042] Mark Allman, Hari Balakrishnan, Sally Floyd.  Enhancing
        TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit.  RFC 3042, January
        2001.

    [RFC3522] Reiner Ludwig, Michael Meyer.  The Eifel Detection
        Algorithm for TCP.  RFC 3522, April 2003.

Informative References

    [AA02] Urtzi Ayesta, Konstantin Avrachenkov, "The Effect of the
        Initial Window Size and Limited Transmit Algorithm on the
        Transient Behavior of TCP Transfers", In Proc. of the 15th ITC
        Internet Specialist Seminar, Wurzburg, July 2002.

    [All00] Mark Allman.  A Server-Side View of WWW Characteristics.
        ACM Computer Communications Review, October 2000.

    [Bal98] Hari Balakrishnan.  Challenges to Reliable Data Transport
        over Heterogeneous Wireless Networks.  Ph.D. Thesis, University
        of California at Berkeley, August 1998.

    [BPS+98] Hari Balakrishnan, Venkata Padmanabhan, Srinivasan Seshan,
        Mark Stemm, and Randy Katz.  TCP Behavior of a Busy Web Server:
        Analysis and Improvements.  Proc. IEEE INFOCOM Conf., San
        Francisco, CA, March 1998.

    [BS02] John Bellardo, Stefan Savage.  Measuring Packet Reordering,
        ACM/USENIX Internet Measurement Workshop, November 2002.

    [FF96] Kevin Fall, Sally Floyd.  Simulation-based Comparisons of
        Tahoe, Reno, and SACK TCP.  ACM Computer Communication Review,
        July 1996.

    [Flo94] Sally Floyd.  TCP and Explicit Congestion Notification.  ACM
        Computer Communication Review, October 1994.

    [Jac88] Van Jacobson.  Congestion Avoidance and Control.  ACM
        SIGCOMM 1988.

    [LK98] Dong Lin, H.T. Kung.  TCP Fast Recovery Strategies: Analysis
        and Improvements.  Proceedings of InfoCom, March 1998.

    [Mor97] Robert Morris.  TCP Behavior with Many Flows.  Proceedings
        of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols.
        October 1997.

    [Pax97] Vern Paxson.  End-to-End Internet Packet Dynamics.  ACM
        SIGCOMM, September 1997.

    [Pir05] N. M. Piratla, "A Theoretical Foundation, Metrics and
        Modeling of Packet Reordering and Methodology of Delay Modeling

Expires: May 2007                                               [Page 7]


draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-04.txt                        November 2006

        using Inter-packet Gaps," Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
        Electrical and Computer Engineering, Colorado State University,
        Fort Collins, CO, Fall 2005.

    [RFC2582] Sally Floyd, Tom Henderson.  The NewReno Modification to
        TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm.  RFC 2582, April 1999.

    [RFC2884] Jamal Hadi Salim and Uvaiz Ahmed. Performance Evaluation
        of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) in IP Networks.  RFC
        2884, July 2000.

    [RFC3150] Spencer Dawkins, Gabriel Montenegro, Markku Kojo, Vincent
        Magret.  End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links.  RFC
        3150, July 2001.

    [RFC3168] K. K. Ramakrishnan, Sally Floyd, David Black.  The
        Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP.  RFC
        3168, September 2001.

    [RFC3517] Ethan Blanton, Mark Allman, Kevin Fall, Lili Wang.  A
        Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery
        Algorithm for TCP.  RFC 3517, April 2003.

Author's Addresses:

    Mark Allman
    ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR)
    1947 Center Street, Suite 600
    Berkeley, CA 94704-1198
    Phone: 440-235-1792
    mallman@icir.org
    http://www.icir.org/mallman/

    Konstantin Avrachenkov
    INRIA
    2004 route des Lucioles, B.P.93
    06902, Sophia Antipolis
    France
    Phone: 00 33 492 38 7751
    k.avrachenkov@sophia.inria.fr
    http://www.inria.fr/mistral/personnel/K.Avrachenkov/moi.html

    Urtzi Ayesta
    LAAS-CNRS
    7 Avenue Colonel Roche
    31077 Toulouse
    France
    urtzi@laas.fr
    http://www.laas.fr/~urtzi

    Josh Blanton
    Ohio University
    301 Stocker Center
    Athens, OH  45701

Expires: May 2007                                               [Page 8]


draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-04.txt                        November 2006

    jblanton@irg.cs.ohiou.edu

Appendix A: Research Issues in Adjusting the Duplicate ACK Threshold

    Decreasing the number of duplicate ACKs required to trigger Fast
    Retransmit, as suggested in section 2, has the drawback of making
    Fast Retransmit less robust in the face of minor network reordering.
    Two egregious examples of problems caused by reordering are given in
    section 3.  This appendix outlines several schemes that have been
    suggested to mitigate the problems caused to Early Retransmit by
    reordering.  These methods need further research before they are
    suggested for general use (and, current consensus is that the cases
    that make Early Retransmit unnecessarily retransmit a large amount
    of data are pathological and therefore these mitigations are not
    generally required).

    MITIGATION A.1: Allow a connection to use Early Retransmit as long
    as the algorithm is not injecting "too much" spurious data into the
    network.  For instance, using the information provided by TCP's
    DSACK option [RFC2883] or SCTP's Duplicate-TSN notification, a
    sender can determine when segments sent via Early Retransmit are
    needless.  Likewise, using Eifel [RFC3522] the sender can detect
    spurious Early Retransmits.  Once spurious Early Retransmits are
    detected the sender can either eliminate the use of Early Retransmit
    or limit the use of the algorithm to ensure that an acceptably small
    fraction of the connection's transmissions are not spurious.  For
    example, a connection could stop using Early Retransmit after the
    first spurious retransmit is detected.

    Alternatively, if a sender cannot reliably determine if an Early
    Retransmitted segment is spurious or not the sender could simply
    limit Early Retransmits either to some fixed number per connection
    (e.g., Early Retransmit is allowed only once per connection) or to
    some small percentage of the total traffic being transmitted.

    MITIGATION A.2: Allow a connection to trigger Early Retransmit using
    the criteria given in section 2, in addition to a "small" timeout
    [Pax97].  For instance, a sender may have to wait for 2 duplicate
    ACKs and then T msec before Early Retransmit is invoked.  The added
    time gives reordered acknowledgments time to arrive at the sender
    and avoid a needless retransmit.  Designing a method for choosing an
    appropriate timeout is part of the research that would need to be
    involved in this scheme.

Intellectual Property Statement

    The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
    Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
    to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
    in this document or the extent to which any license under such
    rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
    it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
    Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
    documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Expires: May 2007                                               [Page 9]


draft-allman-tcp-early-rexmt-04.txt                        November 2006


    Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
    assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
    attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
    of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
    specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
    at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

    The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
    copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
    rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
    this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
    ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Disclaimer of Validity

    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.

Copyright Statement

    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  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.

Acknowledgment

    Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
    Internet Society.





















Expires: May 2007                                              [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/