Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-tsvwg-limited-xmit

draft-ietf-tsvwg-limited-xmit



Internet Engineering Task Force                              Mark Allman
INTERNET DRAFT                                              NASA GRC/BBN
File: draft-ietf-tsvwg-limited-xmit-00.txt             Hari Balakrishnan
                                                                     MIT
                                                             Sally Floyd
                                                                   ACIRI
                                                            August, 2000
                                                 Expires: February, 2001


          Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit

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
 
    This document proposes a new TCP mechanism that can be used to more
    effectively recover lost segments when a connection's congestion
    window is small, or when a large number of segments are lost in a
    single transmission window.  The ``Limited Transmit'' algorithm
    calls for sending a new data segment in response to each of the
    first two duplicate acknowledgments that arrive at the sender.
    Transmitting these segments increases the probability that TCP can
    recover from a single lost segment using the fast retransmit
    algorithm, rather than using a costly retransmission timeout.
    Limited Transmit can be used both in conjunction with, and in the
    absence of, the TCP selective acknowledgment (SACK) mechanism
    [RFC2018].

1   Introduction

    A number of researchers have observed that TCP's loss recovery
    strategies do not work well when the congestion window at a TCP
    sender is small.  This can happen, for instance, because there is
    only a limited amount of data to send, or because of the limit
    imposed by the receiver-advertised window, or because of the

Expires: February 2001                                          [Page 1]

draft-ietf-tsvwg-limited-xmit-00.txt                         August 2000

    constraints imposed by end-to-end congestion control over a
    connection with a small bandwidth-delay product
    [Riz96,Mor97,BPS+98,Bal98,LK98,DMKM00].  When a TCP detects a
    missing segment, it enters a loss recovery phase using one of two
    methods.  First, if an acknowledgment (ACK) for a given segment is
    not received in a certain amount of time a retransmission timeout
    occurs and the segment is resent [RFC793,PA00].  Second, the ``Fast
    Retransmit'' algorithm resends a segment when three duplicate ACKs
    arrive at the sender [Jac88,RFC2581].  However, because duplicate
    ACKs from the receiver are also triggered by packet reordering in
    the Internet, the TCP sender waits for three duplicate ACKs in an
    attempt to disambiguate segment loss from packet reordering.  Once
    in a loss recovery phase, a number of techniques can be used to
    retransmit lost segments, including slow start-based recovery or
    Fast Recovery [RFC2581], NewReno [RFC2582], and loss recovery based
    on selective acknowledgments (SACKs) [RFC2018,FF96].

    TCP's retransmission timeout (RTO) is based on measured round-trip
    times (RTT) between the sender and receiver, as specified in [PA00].
    To prevent spurious retransmissions of segments that are only
    delayed and not lost, the minimum RTO is conservatively chosen to be
    1 second.  Therefore, it behooves TCP senders to detect and recover
    from as many losses as possible without incurring a lengthy timeout
    when 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 or if a large number of segments in a window are lost.  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+97] found that roughly 56% of retransmissions sent by a busy
    web server were sent after the RTO expires, while only 44% were
    handled by Fast Retransmit.  In addition, only 4% of the RTO-based
    retransmissions could have been avoided with SACK, which of course
    has to continue to disambiguate reordering from genuine loss.  In
    contrast, using the technique outlined in this document and in
    [Bal98], 25% of the RTO-based retransmissions in that dataset would
    have likely been avoided.

    The next section of this document outlines small changes to TCP
    senders that will decrease the reliance on the retransmission timer,
    and thereby improve TCP performance when Fast Retransmit is not
    triggered.  These changes do not adversely affect the performance of
    TCP nor interact adversely with other connections, in other
    circumstances.

2   The Limited Transmit Algorithm

    When a TCP sender has previously unsent data queued for transmission
    it SHOULD use the Limited Transmit algorithm, which calls for a TCP
    sender to transmit new data upon the arrival of a duplicate ACK when

Expires: February 2001                                          [Page 2]

draft-ietf-tsvwg-limited-xmit-00.txt                         August 2000

    the following conditions are satisfied:

      * The receiver's advertised window allows the transmission of the
        segment.

      * The amount of outstanding data would remain less than the
        congestion window plus 2 segments.  In other words, the sender
        can only send two segments beyond the congestion window (cwnd).
    
    The congestion window (cwnd) MUST NOT be changed when these new
    segments are transmitted.  Assuming that these new segments and the
    corresponding ACKs are not dropped, this procedure allows the sender
    to infer loss using the standard Fast Retransmit threshold of three
    duplicate ACKs [RFC2581].  This is more robust to reordered packets
    than if an old packet were retransmitted on the first or second
    duplicate ACK.
    
    Note: If the connection is using selective acknowledgments
    [RFC2018], the data sender MUST NOT send new segments in response to
    duplicate ACKs that contain no new SACK information, as a
    misbehaving receiver can generate such ACKs to trigger inappropriate
    transmission of data segments.  See [SCWA99] for a discussion of
    attacks by misbehaving receivers.

    Limited Transmit follows the ``conservation of packets'' congestion
    control principle [Jac88].  Each of the first two duplicate ACKs
    indicate that a segment has left the network.  Furthermore, the
    sender has not yet decided that a segment has been dropped and
    therefore has no reason to assume that the current congestion
    control state is inaccurate.  Therefore, transmitting segments does
    not deviate from the spirit of TCP's congestion control principles.

    [BPS99] shows that packet reordering is not a rare network event.
    [RFC2581] does not provide for sending of data on the first two
    duplicate ACKs that arrive at the sender.  This causes a burst of
    segments to be sent when an ACK for new data does arrive following
    packet reordering.  Using Limited Transmit, data packets will be
    clocked out by incoming ACKs and therefore transmission will not be
    as bursty.

    Note: Limited Transmit is implemented in the ns simulator [NS].
    Researchers wishing to investigate this mechanism further can do so
    by enabling ``singledup_'' for the given TCP connection.

3   Related Work

    Deployment of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [Flo94,RFC2481]
    may benefit connections with small congestion window sizes [SA00].
    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 congestion
    window sizes because the sender will be required to detect less
    segment loss [SA00].


Expires: February 2001                                          [Page 3]

draft-ietf-tsvwg-limited-xmit-00.txt                         August 2000

    When ECN-enabled TCP traffic competes with non-ECN-enabled TCP
    traffic, ECN-enabled traffic can receive up to 30% higher goodput.
    For bulk transfers, the relative performance benefit of ECN is
    greatest when on average each flow has 3-4 outstanding packets
    during each roundtrip time [ZQ00].  This should be a good estimate
    for the performance impact of a flow using Limited Transmit, since
    both ECN and Limited Transmit reduce the reliance on the
    retransmission timer for signaling congestion.
    
    The Rate-Halving congestion control algorithm [MSML99] uses a form
    of limited transmit, as it calls for transmitting a data segment on
    every second duplicate ACK that arrives at the sender.  The
    algorithm decouples the decision of what to send from the decision
    of when to send.  However, similar to Limited Transmit the algorithm
    will always send a new data segment on the second duplicate ACK that
    arrives at the sender.

4   Security Considerations
 
    The additional security implications of the changes proposed in this
    document, compared to TCP's current vulnerabilities, are minimal.
    The potential security issues come from the subversion of end-to-end
    congestion control from "false" duplicate ACKs, where a "false"
    duplicate ACK is a duplicate ACK that does not actually acknowledge
    new data received at the TCP receiver.  False duplicate ACKs could
    result from duplicate ACKs that are themselves duplicated in the
    network, or from misbehaving TCP receivers that send false duplicate
    ACKs to subvert end-to-end congestion control [SCWA99,RFC2581].

    When the TCP data receiver has agreed to use the SACK option, the
    TCP data sender has fairly strong protection against false duplicate
    ACKs.  In particular, with SACK, a duplicate ACK that acknowledges
    new data arriving at the receiver reports the sequence numbers of
    that new data.  Thus, with SACK, the TCP sender can verify that an
    arriving duplicate ACK acknowledges data that the TCP sender has
    actually sent, and for which no previous acknowledgment has been
    received, before sending new data as a result of that
    acknowledgment.  For further protection, the TCP sender could keep a
    record of packet boundaries for transmitted data packets, and
    recognize at most one valid acknowledgment for each packet (e.g.,
    the first acknowledgment acknowledging the receipt of all of the
    sequence numbers in that packet).

    One could imagine some limited protection against false duplicate
    ACKs for a non-SACK TCP connection, where the TCP sender keeps a
    record of the number of packets transmitted, and recognizes at most
    one acknowledgment per packet to be used for triggering the sending
    of new data.  However, this accounting of packets transmitted and
    acknowledged would require additional state and extra complexity at
    the TCP sender, and does not seem necessary.

    The most important protection against false duplicate ACKs comes
    from the limited potential of duplicate ACKs in subverting
    end-to-end congestion control.  There are two separate cases to

Expires: February 2001                                          [Page 4]

draft-ietf-tsvwg-limited-xmit-00.txt                         August 2000

    consider: when the TCP sender receives less than a threshold number
    of duplicate ACKs, and when the TCP sender receives at least a
    threshold number of duplicate ACKs.  In the latter case a TCP with
    Limited Transmit will behave essentially the same as a TCP without
    Limited Transmit in that the congestion window will be halved and a
    loss recovery period will be initiated.

    When a TCP sender receives less than a threshold number of duplicate
    ACKs a misbehaving receiver could send two duplicate ACKs after each
    regular ACK.  One might imagine that the TCP sender would send at
    three times its allowed sending rate.  However, using Limited
    Transmit as outlined in section 2 the sender is only allowed to
    exceed the congestion window by less than the duplicate ACK
    threshold (of three segments), and thus would not send a new packet
    for each duplicate ACK received.

Acknowledgments    

    Jamshid Mahdavi and the Transport Area Working Group provided
    valuable feedback on an early version of this document.

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

    [BPS+97] Hari Balakrishnan, Venkata Padmanabhan, Srinivasan Seshan,
        Mark Stemm, and Randy Katz.  TCP Behavior of a Busy Web Server:
        Analysis and Improvements.  Technical Report UCB/CSD-97-966,
        August 1997.  Available from
        http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/~hari/papers/csd-97-966.ps.  (Also in
        Proc. IEEE INFOCOM Conf., San Francisco, CA, March 1998.)

    [BPS99] Jon Bennett, Craig Partridge, Nicholas Shectman.  Packet
        Reordering is Not Pathological Network Behavior.  IEEE/ACM
        Transactions on Networking, December 1999.

    
    [DMKM00] Spencer Dawkins, Gabriel Montenegro, Markku Kojo, Vincent
        Magret.  End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links,
        Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pilc-slow-03.txt, March 2000 (work in
        progress).

    [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.


Expires: February 2001                                          [Page 5]

draft-ietf-tsvwg-limited-xmit-00.txt                         August 2000

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

    [MSML99] Matt Mathis, Jeff Semke, Jamshid Mahdavi, Kevin Lahey.  The
        Rate Halving Algorithm, 1999. URL:
        http://www.psc.edu/networking/rate_halving.html.
    
    [Mor97] Robert Morris.  TCP Behavior with Many Flows.  Proceedings
        of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols.
        October 1997.

    [NS] Ns network simulator.  URL: http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/.

    [PA00] Vern Paxson, Mark Allman. Computing TCP's Retransmission
        Timer, April 2000. Internet-Draft draft-paxson-tcp-rto-01.txt
        (work in progress).

    [Riz96] Luigi Rizzo.  Issues in the Implementation of Selective
        Acknowledgments for TCP.  January, 1996.  URL:
        http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/selack.ps

    [SA00] Jamal Hadi Salim and Uvaiz Ahmed, Performance Evaluation of
        Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) in IP Networks,
        draft-hadi-jhsua-ecnperf-01.txt, March 2000 (work in progress).

    [SCWA99] Stefan Savage, Neal Cardwell, David Wetherall, Tom
        Anderson.  TCP Congestion Control with a Misbehaving Receiver.
        ACM Computer Communications Review, October 1999.

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

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

    [RFC2481] K. K. Ramakrishnan, Sally Floyd.  A Proposal to Add
        Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP.  RFC 2481, January
        1999.

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

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

    [ZQ00] Yin Zhang and Lili Qiu, Understanding the End-to-End
        Performance Impact of RED in a Heterogeneous Environment,
        Cornell CS Technical Report 2000-1802, July 2000.  URL
        http://www.cs.cornell.edu/yzhang/papers.htm.

    




Expires: February 2001                                          [Page 6]

draft-ietf-tsvwg-limited-xmit-00.txt                         August 2000

Author's Addresses:
    
    Mark Allman
    NASA Glenn Research Center/BBN Technologies
    Lewis Field
    21000 Brookpark Rd.  MS 54-2
    Cleveland, OH  44135
    Phone: 216-433-6586
    Fax: 216-433-8705
    mallman@grc.nasa.gov
    http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman

    Hari Balakrishnan
    Laboratory for Computer Science
    545 Technology Square
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Cambridge, MA 02139
    hari@lcs.mit.edu
    http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/~hari/

    Sally Floyd
    AT&T Center for Internet Research at ICSI (ACIRI)
    1947 Center St, Suite 600
    Berkeley, CA 94704
    Phone: +1 (510) 666-2989
    floyd@aciri.org
    http://www.aciri.org/floyd/




























Expires: February 2001                                          [Page 7]