Network Working Group                                          L. Eggert
Request for Comments: 5482                                         Nokia
Category: Standards Track                                        F. Gont
                                                              March 2009

                        TCP User Timeout Option

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.


   The TCP user timeout controls how long transmitted data may remain
   unacknowledged before a connection is forcefully closed.  It is a
   local, per-connection parameter.  This document specifies a new TCP
   option -- the TCP User Timeout Option -- that allows one end of a TCP
   connection to advertise its current user timeout value.  This
   information provides advice to the other end of the TCP connection to
   adapt its user timeout accordingly.  Increasing the user timeouts on
   both ends of a TCP connection allows it to survive extended periods
   without end-to-end connectivity.  Decreasing the user timeouts allows
   busy servers to explicitly notify their clients that they will
   maintain the connection state only for a short time without

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                     [Page 1]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Conventions .....................................................3
   3. Operation .......................................................4
      3.1. Changing the Local User Timeout ............................5
      3.2. UTO Option Reliability .....................................8
      3.3. Option Format ..............................................8
      3.4. Reserved Option Values .....................................9
   4. Interoperability Issues .........................................9
      4.1. Middleboxes ................................................9
      4.2. TCP Keep-Alives ...........................................10
   5. Programming and Manageability Considerations ...................10
   6. Security Considerations ........................................10
   7. IANA Considerations ............................................12
   8. Acknowledgments ................................................12
   9. References .....................................................12
      9.1. Normative References ......................................12
      9.2. Informative References ....................................13

1.  Introduction

   The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) specification [RFC0793]
   defines a local, per-connection "user timeout" parameter that
   specifies the maximum amount of time that transmitted data may remain
   unacknowledged before TCP will forcefully close the corresponding
   connection.  Applications can set and change this parameter with OPEN
   and SEND calls.  If an end-to-end connectivity disruption lasts
   longer than the user timeout, a sender will receive no
   acknowledgments for any transmission attempt, including keep-alives,
   and it will close the TCP connection when the user timeout occurs.

   This document specifies a new TCP option -- the TCP User Timeout
   Option (UTO) -- that allows one end of a TCP connection to advertise
   its current user timeout value.  This information provides advice to
   the other end of the connection to adapt its user timeout
   accordingly.  That is, TCP remains free to disregard the advice
   provided by the UTO option if local policies suggest it to be

   Increasing the user timeouts on both ends of a TCP connection allows
   it to survive extended periods without end-to-end connectivity.
   Decreasing the user timeouts allows busy servers to explicitly notify
   their clients that they will maintain the connection state only for a
   short time without connectivity.

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                     [Page 2]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

   In the absence of an application-specified user timeout, the TCP
   specification [RFC0793] defines a default user timeout of 5 minutes.
   The Host Requirements RFC [RFC1122] refines this definition by
   introducing two thresholds, R1 and R2 (R2 > R1), that control the
   number of retransmission attempts for a single segment.  It suggests
   that TCP should notify applications when R1 is reached for a segment,
   and close the connection when R2 is reached.  [RFC1122] also defines
   the recommended values for R1 (3 retransmissions) and R2 (100
   seconds), noting that R2 for SYN segments should be at least 3
   minutes.  Instead of a single user timeout, some TCP implementations
   offer finer-grained policies.  For example, Solaris supports
   different timeouts depending on whether a TCP connection is in the

   Although some TCP implementations allow applications to set their
   local user timeout, TCP has no in-protocol mechanism to signal
   changes to the local user timeout to the other end of a connection.
   This causes local changes to be ineffective in allowing a connection
   to survive extended periods without connectivity, because the other
   end will still close the connection after its user timeout expires.

   The ability to inform the other end of a connection about the local
   user timeout can improve TCP operation in scenarios that are
   currently not well supported.  One example of such a scenario is
   mobile hosts that change network attachment points.  Such hosts,
   maybe using Mobile IP [RFC3344], HIP [RFC4423], or transport-layer
   mobility mechanisms [TCP_MOB], are only intermittently connected to
   the Internet.  In between connected periods, mobile hosts may
   experience periods without end-to-end connectivity.  Other factors
   that can cause transient connectivity disruptions are high levels of
   congestion or link or routing failures inside the network.  In these
   scenarios, a host may not know exactly when or for how long
   connectivity disruptions will occur, but it might be able to
   determine an increased likelihood for such events based on past
   mobility patterns and thus benefit from using longer user timeouts.
   In other scenarios, the time and duration of a connectivity
   disruption may even be predictable.  For example, a node in space
   might experience connectivity disruptions due to line-of-sight
   blocking by planetary bodies.  The timing of these events may be
   computable from orbital mechanics.

2.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                     [Page 3]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

3.  Operation

   Use of the TCP User Timeout Option can be either enabled on a per-
   connection basis, e.g., through an API option, or controlled by a
   system-wide setting.  TCP maintains four per-connection state
   variables to control the operation of the UTO option, three of which
   (ADV_UTO, ENABLED, and CHANGEABLE) are new:

      TCP's USER TIMEOUT parameter, as specified in [RFC0793].

      UTO option advertised to the remote TCP peer.  This is an
      application-specified value, and may be specified on a system-wide
      basis.  If unspecified, it defaults to the default system-wide

   ENABLED (Boolean)
      Flag that controls whether the UTO option is enabled for a
      connection.  This flag applies to both sending and receiving.
      Defaults to false.

   CHANGEABLE (Boolean)
      Flag that controls whether USER_TIMEOUT (TCP's USER TIMEOUT
      parameter) may be changed based on an UTO option received from the
      other end of the connection.  Defaults to true and becomes false
      when an application explicitly sets USER_TIMEOUT.

   Note that an exchange of UTO options between both ends of a
   connection is not a binding negotiation.  Transmission of a UTO
   option is a suggestion that the other end consider adapting its user
   timeout.  This adaptation only happens if the other end of the
   connection has explicitly allowed it (both ENABLED and CHANGEABLE are

   Before opening a connection, an application that wishes to use the
   UTO option enables its use by setting ENABLED to true.  It may choose
   an appropriate local UTO by explicitly setting ADV_UTO; otherwise,
   UTO is set to the default USER TIMEOUT value.  Finally, the
   application should determine whether it will allow the local USER
   TIMEOUT to change based on received UTO options from the other end of
   a connection.  The default is to allow this for connections that do
   not have specific user timeout concerns.  If an application
   explicitly sets the USER_TIMEOUT, CHANGEABLE MUST become false in
   order to prevent UTO options (from the other end) from overriding
   local application requests.  Alternatively, applications can set or
   clear CHANGEABLE directly through API calls.

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                     [Page 4]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

   Performing these steps before an active or passive open causes UTO
   options to be exchanged in the SYN and SYN-ACK packets and is a
   reliable way to initially exchange, and potentially adapt to, UTO
   values.  TCP implementations MAY provide system-wide default settings
   for the ENABLED, ADV_UTO and CHANGEABLE connection parameters.

   In addition to exchanging UTO options in the SYN segments, a
   connection that has enabled UTO options SHOULD include a UTO option
   in the first packet that does not have the SYN flag set.  This helps
   to minimize the amount of state information TCP must keep for
   connections in non-synchronized states.  Also, it is particularly
   useful when mechanisms such as "SYN cookies" [RFC4987] are
   implemented, allowing a newly-established TCP connection to benefit
   from the information advertised by the UTO option, even if the UTO
   contained in the initial SYN segment was not recorded.

   A host that supports the UTO option SHOULD include one in the next
   possible outgoing segment whenever it starts using a new user timeout
   for the connection.  This allows the other end of the connection to
   adapt its local user timeout accordingly.  A TCP implementation that
   does not support the UTO option MUST silently ignore it [RFC1122],
   thus ensuring interoperability.

   Hosts MUST impose upper and lower limits on the user timeouts they
   use for a connection.  Section 3.1 discusses user timeout limits and
   potentially problematic effects of some user timeout settings.

   Finally, it is worth noting that TCP's option space is limited to 40
   bytes.  As a result, if other TCP options are in use, they may
   already consume all the available TCP option space, thus preventing
   the use of the UTO option specified in this document.  Therefore, TCP
   option space issues should be considered before enabling the UTO

3.1.  Changing the Local User Timeout

   When a host receives a TCP User Timeout Option, it must decide
   whether to change the local user timeout of the corresponding
   connection.  If the CHANGEABLE flag is false, USER_TIMEOUT MUST NOT
   be changed, regardless of the received UTO option.  Without this
   restriction, the UTO option would modify TCP semantics, because an
   application-requested USER TIMEOUT could be overridden by peer
   requests.  In this case TCP SHOULD, however, notify the application
   about the user timeout value received from the other end system.

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                     [Page 5]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

   In general, unless the application on the local host has requested a
   specific USER TIMEOUT for the connection, CHANGEABLE will be true and
   hosts SHOULD adjust the local TCP USER TIMEOUT (USER_TIMEOUT) in
   response to receiving a UTO option, as described in the remainder of
   this section.

   The UTO option specifies the user timeout in seconds or minutes,
   rather than in number of retransmissions or round-trip times (RTTs).
   Thus, the UTO option allows hosts to exchange user timeout values
   from 1 second to over 9 hours at a granularity of seconds, and from 1
   minute to over 22 days at a granularity of minutes.

   Very short USER TIMEOUT values can affect TCP transmissions over
   high-delay paths.  If the user timeout occurs before an
   acknowledgment for an outstanding segment arrives, possibly due to
   packet loss, the connection closes.  Many TCP implementations default
   to USER TIMEOUT values of a few minutes.  Although the UTO option
   allows suggestion of short timeouts, applications advertising them
   should consider these effects.

   Long USER TIMEOUT values allow hosts to tolerate extended periods
   without end-to-end connectivity.  However, they also require hosts to
   maintain the TCP state information associated with connections for
   long periods of time.  Section 6 discusses the security implications
   of long timeout values.

   To protect against these effects, implementations MUST impose limits
   on the user timeout values they accept and use.  The remainder of
   this section describes a RECOMMENDED scheme to limit TCP's USER
   TIMEOUT based on upper and lower limits.

   Under the RECOMMENDED scheme, and when CHANGEABLE is true, each end
   SHOULD compute the local USER TIMEOUT for a connection according to
   this formula:


   Each field is to be interpreted as follows:

      USER TIMEOUT value to be adopted by the local TCP for this

      Current upper limit imposed on the user timeout of a connection by
      the local host.

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                     [Page 6]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

      User timeout advertised to the remote TCP peer in a TCP User
      Timeout Option.

      Last user timeout value received from the other end in a TCP User
      Timeout Option.

      Current lower limit imposed on the user timeout of a connection by
      the local host.

   The RECOMMENDED formula results in the maximum of the two advertised
   values, adjusted for the configured upper and lower limits, to be
   adopted for the user timeout of the connection on both ends.  The
   rationale is that choosing the maximum of the two values will let the
   connection survive longer periods without end-to-end connectivity.
   If the end that announced the lower of the two user timeout values
   did so in order to reduce the amount of TCP state information that
   must be kept on the host, it can close or abort the connection
   whenever it wants.

   It must be noted that the two endpoints of the connection will not
   necessarily adopt the same user timeout.

   Enforcing a lower limit (L_LIMIT) prevents connections from closing
   due to transient network conditions, including temporary congestion,
   mobility hand-offs, and routing instabilities.

   An upper limit (U_LIMIT) can reduce the effect of resource exhaustion
   attacks.  Section 6 discusses the details of these attacks.

   Note that these limits MAY be specified as system-wide constants or
   at other granularities, such as on per-host, per-user, per-outgoing-
   interface, or even per-connection basis.  Furthermore, these limits
   need not be static.  For example, they MAY be a function of system
   resource utilization or attack status and could be dynamically

   The Host Requirements RFC [RFC1122] does not impose any limits on the
   length of the user timeout.  However, it recommends a time interval
   of at least 100 seconds.  Consequently, the lower limit (L_LIMIT)
   SHOULD be set to at least 100 seconds when following the RECOMMENDED
   scheme described in this section.  Adopting a user timeout smaller
   than the current retransmission timeout (RTO) for the connection
   would likely cause the connection to be aborted unnecessarily.
   Therefore, the lower limit (L_LIMIT) MUST be larger than the current

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                     [Page 7]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

   retransmission timeout (RTO) for the connection.  It is worth noting
   that an upper limit may be imposed on the RTO, provided it is at
   least 60 seconds [RFC2988].

3.2.  UTO Option Reliability

   The TCP User Timeout Option is an advisory TCP option that does not
   change processing of subsequent segments.  Unlike other TCP options,
   it need not be exchanged reliably.  Consequently, the specification
   does not define a reliability handshake for UTO option exchanges.
   When a segment that carries a UTO option is lost, the other end will
   simply not have the opportunity to update its local USER TIMEOUT.

   Implementations MAY implement local mechanisms to improve delivery
   reliability, such as retransmitting a UTO option when they retransmit
   a segment that originally carried it, or "attaching" the option to a
   byte in the stream and retransmitting the option whenever that byte
   or its ACK are retransmitted.

   It is important to note that although these mechanisms can improve
   transmission reliability for the UTO option, they do not guarantee
   delivery (a three-way handshake would be required for this).
   Consequently, implementations MUST NOT assume that UTO options are
   transmitted reliably.

3.3.  Option Format

   Sending a TCP User Timeout Option informs the other end of the
   connection of the current local user timeout and suggests that the
   other end adapt its user timeout accordingly.  The user timeout value
   included in a UTO option contains the ADV_UTO value that is expected
   to be adopted for the TCP's USER TIMEOUT parameter during the
   synchronized states of a connection (ESTABLISHED, FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-
   WAIT-2, CLOSE-WAIT, CLOSING, or LAST-ACK).  Connections in other
   states MUST use the default timeout values defined in [RFC0793] and

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     |   Kind = 28   |   Length = 4  |G|        User Timeout         |

   (One tick mark represents one bit.)

              Figure 1: Format of the TCP User Timeout Option

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                     [Page 8]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

   Figure 1 shows the format of the TCP User Timeout Option.  It
   contains these fields:

   Kind (8 bits)
      This MUST be 28, i.e., the TCP option number [RFC0793] that has
      been assigned by IANA (see Section 7).

   Length (8 bits)
      Length of the TCP option in octets [RFC0793]; its value MUST be 4.

   Granularity (1 bit)
      Granularity bit, indicating the granularity of the "User Timeout"
      field.  When set (G = 1), the time interval in the "User Timeout"
      field MUST be interpreted as minutes.  Otherwise (G = 0), the time
      interval in the "User Timeout" field MUST be interpreted as

   User Timeout (15 bits)
      Specifies the user timeout suggestion for this connection.  It
      MUST be interpreted as a 15-bit unsigned integer.  The granularity
      of the timeout (minutes or seconds) depends on the "G" field.

3.4.  Reserved Option Values

   A TCP User Timeout Option with a "User Timeout" field of zero and a
   "Granularity" bit of either minutes (1) or seconds (0) is reserved
   for future use.  Current TCP implementations MUST NOT send it and
   MUST ignore it upon reception.

4.  Interoperability Issues

   This section discusses interoperability issues related to introducing
   the TCP User Timeout Option.

4.1.  Middleboxes

   A TCP implementation that does not support the TCP User Timeout
   Option MUST silently ignore it [RFC1122], thus ensuring
   interoperability.  In a study of the effects of middleboxes on
   transport protocols, Medina et al. have shown that the vast majority
   of modern TCP stacks correctly handle unknown TCP options [MEDINA].
   In this study, 3% of connections failed when an unknown TCP option
   appeared in the middle of a connection.  Because the number of
   failures caused by unknown options is small and they are a result of
   incorrectly implemented TCP stacks that violate existing requirements
   to ignore unknown options, they do not warrant special measures.
   Thus, this document does not define a mechanism to negotiate support
   of the TCP User Timeout Option during the three-way handshake.

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                     [Page 9]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

   Implementations may want to exchange UTO options on the very first
   data segments after the three-way handshake to determine if such a
   middlebox exists on the path.  When segments carrying UTO options are
   persistently lost, an implementation should turn off the use of UTO
   for the connection.  When the connection itself is reset, an
   implementation may be able to transparently re-establish another
   connection instance that does not use UTO before any application data
   has been successfully exchanged.

   Stateful firewalls usually time out connection state after a period
   of inactivity.  If such a firewall exists along the path, it may
   close or abort connections regardless of the use of the TCP User
   Timeout Option.  In the future, such firewalls may learn to parse the
   TCP User Timeout Option in unencrypted TCP segments and adapt
   connection state management accordingly.

4.2.  TCP Keep-Alives

   Some TCP implementations, such as those in BSD systems, use a
   different abort policy for TCP keep-alives than for user data.  Thus,
   the TCP keep-alive mechanism might abort a connection that would
   otherwise have survived the transient period without connectivity.
   Therefore, if a connection that enables keep-alives is also using the
   TCP User Timeout Option, then the keep-alive timer MUST be set to a
   value larger than that of the adopted USER TIMEOUT.

5.  Programming and Manageability Considerations

   The IETF specification for TCP [RFC0793] includes a simple, abstract
   application programming interface (API).  Similarly, the API for the
   UTO extension in Section 3 is kept abstract.  TCP implementations,
   however, usually provide more complex and feature-rich APIs.  The
   "socket" API that originated with BSD Unix and is now standardized by
   POSIX is one such example [POSIX].  It is expected that TCP
   implementations that choose to include the UTO extension will extend
   their API to allow applications to use and configure its parameters.

   The MIB objects defined in [RFC4022] and [RFC4898] allow management
   of TCP connections.  It is expected that revisions to these documents
   will include definitions of objects for managing the UTO extension
   defined in this document.

6.  Security Considerations

   Lengthening user timeouts has obvious security implications.
   Flooding attacks cause denial of service by forcing servers to commit
   resources for maintaining the state of throw-away connections.
   However, TCP implementations do not become more vulnerable to simple

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                    [Page 10]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

   SYN flooding by implementing the TCP User Timeout Option, because
   user timeouts exchanged during the handshake only affect the
   synchronized states (ESTABLISHED, FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2, CLOSE-WAIT,
   CLOSING, LAST-ACK), which simple SYN floods never reach.

   However, when an attacker completes the three-way handshakes of its
   throw-away connections, it can amplify the effects of resource
   exhaustion attacks because the attacked server must maintain the
   connection state associated with the throw-away connections for
   longer durations.  Because connection state is kept longer, lower-
   frequency attack traffic, which may be more difficult to detect, can
   already exacerbate resource exhaustion.

   Several approaches can help mitigate this issue.  First,
   implementations can require prior peer authentication, e.g., using
   IPsec [RFC4301] or TCP-MD5 [RFC2385], before accepting long user
   timeouts for the peer's connections.  (Implementors that decide to
   use TCP-MD5 for this purpose are encouraged to monitor the
   development of TCP-AO [AUTH_OPT], its designated successor, and
   update their implementation when it is published as an RFC.)  A
   similar approach is for a host to start accepting long user timeouts
   for an established connection only after in-band authentication has
   occurred, for example, after a TLS handshake across the connection
   has succeeded [RFC5246].  Although these are arguably the most
   complete solutions, they depend on external mechanisms to establish a
   trust relationship.

   A second alternative that does not depend on external mechanisms
   would introduce a per-peer limit on the number of connections that
   may use increased user timeouts.  Several variants of this approach
   are possible, such as fixed limits or shortening accepted user
   timeouts with a rising number of connections.  Although this
   alternative does not eliminate resource exhaustion attacks from a
   single peer, it can limit their effects.  Reducing the number of
   high-UTO connections a server supports in the face of an attack turns
   that attack into a denial-of-service attack against the service of
   high-UTO connections.

   Per-peer limits cannot protect against distributed denial-of-service
   attacks, where multiple clients coordinate a resource exhaustion
   attack that uses long user timeouts.  To protect against such
   attacks, TCP implementations could reduce the duration of accepted
   user timeouts with increasing resource utilization.

   TCP implementations under attack may be forced to shed load by
   resetting established connections.  Some load-shedding heuristics,
   such as resetting connections with long idle times first, can
   negatively affect service for intermittently connected, trusted peers

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                    [Page 11]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

   that have suggested long user timeouts.  On the other hand, resetting
   connections to untrusted peers that use long user timeouts may be
   effective.  In general, using the peers' level of trust as a
   parameter during the load-shedding decision process may be useful.
   Note that if TCP needs to close or abort connections with a long TCP
   User Timeout Option to shed load, these connections are still no
   worse off than without the option.

   Finally, upper and lower limits on user timeouts, discussed in
   Section 3.1, can be an effective tool to limit the impact of these
   sorts of attacks.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This section is to be interpreted according to [RFC5226].

   This document does not define any new namespaces.  IANA has allocated
   a new 8-bit TCP option number (28) for the UTO option from the "TCP
   Option Kind Numbers" registry maintained at http://www.iana.org.

8.  Acknowledgments

   The following people have improved this document through thoughtful
   suggestions: Mark Allman, Caitlin Bestler, David Borman, Bob Braden,
   Scott Brim, Marcus Brunner, Wesley Eddy, Gorry Fairhurst, Abolade
   Gbadegesin, Ted Faber, Guillermo Gont, Tom Henderson, Joseph Ishac,
   Jeremy Harris, Alfred Hoenes, Phil Karn, Michael Kerrisk, Dan Krejsa,
   Jamshid Mahdavi, Kostas Pentikousis, Juergen Quittek, Anantha
   Ramaiah, Joe Touch, Stefan Schmid, Simon Schuetz, Tim Shepard, and
   Martin Stiemerling.

   Lars Eggert is partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project
   supported by the European Commission under its Seventh Framework

   Fernando Gont wishes to thank Secretaria de Extension Universitaria
   at Universidad Tecnologica Nacional and Universidad Tecnologica
   Nacional/Facultad Regional Haedo for supporting him in this work.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0793]   Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
               RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC1122]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
               Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                    [Page 12]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5226]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
               IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
               May 2008.

9.2.  Informative References

   [AUTH_OPT]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
               Authentication Option", Work in Progress, November 2008.

   [MEDINA]    Medina, A., Allman, M., and S. Floyd, "Measuring
               Interactions Between Transport Protocols and
               Middleboxes", Proc. 4th ACM SIGCOMM/USENIX Conference on
               Internet Measurement, October 2004.

   [POSIX]     IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001, "Standard for Information
               Technology - Portable Operating System Interface
               (POSIX)", Open Group Technical Standard: Base
               Specifications Issue 6, ISO/IEC 9945:2002, December 2001.

   [RFC2385]   Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP
               MD5 Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.

   [RFC2988]   Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission
               Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.

   [RFC3344]   Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
               August 2002.

   [RFC4022]   Raghunarayan, R., "Management Information Base for the
               Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", RFC 4022,
               March 2005.

   [RFC4301]   Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
               Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4423]   Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
               (HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006.

   [RFC4898]   Mathis, M., Heffner, J., and R. Raghunarayan, "TCP
               Extended Statistics MIB", RFC 4898, May 2007.

   [RFC4987]   Eddy, W., "TCP SYN Flooding Attacks and Common
               Mitigations", RFC 4987, August 2007.

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                    [Page 13]
RFC 5482                TCP User Timeout Option               March 2009

   [RFC5246]   Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
               (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [SOLARIS]   Sun Microsystems, "Solaris Tunable Parameters Reference
               Manual", Part No. 806-7009-10, 2002.

   [TCP_MOB]   Eddy, W., "Mobility Support For TCP", Work in Progress,
               April 2004.

   [TRILOGY]   "Trilogy Project", <http://www.trilogy-project.org/>.

Authors' Addresses

   Lars Eggert
   Nokia Research Center
   P.O. Box 407
   Nokia Group  00045

   Phone: +358 50 48 24461
   EMail: lars.eggert@nokia.com
   URI:   http://research.nokia.com/people/lars_eggert/

   Fernando Gont
   Universidad Tecnologica Nacional / Facultad Regional Haedo
   Evaristo Carriego 2644
   Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires  1706

   Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
   EMail: fernando@gont.com.ar
   URI:   http://www.gont.com.ar/

Eggert & Gont               Standards Track                    [Page 14]