[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Internet Engineering Task Force                               Jim Gettys
Internet-Draft                                  Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
Intended status: Informational                           August 26, 2011
Expires: February 27, 2012


                        IW10 Considered Harmful
                draft-gettys-iw10-considered-harmful-00

Abstract

   The proposed change to the initial window to 10 indraft-ietf-tcpm-
   initcwnd must be considered deeply harmful; not because it is the
   proposed change is evil taken in isolation, but that other changes in
   web browsers and web sites that have occurred over the last decade,
   it makes the problem of transient congestion at a user's broadband
   connection two and a half times worse.  This result has been hidden
   by the already widespread bufferbloat present in broadband
   connections.  Packet loss in isolation is no longer a useful metric
   of a path's quality.  The very drive to improve latency of web page
   rendering is already destroying other low latency applications, such
   as VOIP and gaming, and will prevent reliable rich web real time web
   applications such as those contemplated by the IETF rtcweb working
   group.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 27, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Jim Gettys              Expires February 27, 2012               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           IW10 Considered Harmful             August 2011


   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   6.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
































Jim Gettys              Expires February 27, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           IW10 Considered Harmful             August 2011


1.  Introduction

   In the second half of the 2000's, competition in web browsers
   reappeared and changed focus from strictly features, to speed
   (meaning latency, at least as seen from data-centers, which can be
   highly misleading), with the discovery (most clearly understood by
   Google) that web sites are stickier the faster (lower latency) they
   are.  Perhaps Sergey Brin and Larry Page knew Stuart Cheshire at
   Stanford?  [Cheshire].

   The problem, in short, is the multiplicative effect of the following:

   o  Browsers ignoring RFC 2068 [RFC2068] and RFC 2616 [RFC2616]
      requirement to use no more than two simultaneous TCP connections,
      with current browsers often using 6 or sometimes many more
      simultaneous TCP connections

   o  "Sharded" web sites that sometimes deliberately hide the path to
      servers actually located in the same data center, to encourage
      browsers to use even more simultaneous TCP connections

   o  The proposed change to the TCP congestion window, to allow each
      fresh TCP connection to send as much as 2.5 times as much data as
      in the past.

   o  Current broadband connections having a single queue available to
      customers, which is usually badly over-buffered, hiding packet
      loss

   o  Web pages having large numbers of embedded objects in a web page.

   o  Web servers having large memory caches and processing power when
      generating objects on the fly that responses are often/usually
      transmitted effectively instantaneously at line rate speed

   The result can easily be a horrifying large impulse of packets sent
   effectively simultaneously to the user as a continuous packet train,
   landing in, and clogging the one queue in their broadband connection
   and/or home router for extended periods of time.  Any chance for your
   VOIP call to work correctly, or to avoid being fragged in your game,
   evaporates.


2.  Discussion

   The original reasons for the 2 TCP connection rule in RFC 2068
   [RFC2068] and RFC 2616 [RFC2616] in section 8.1.4 are long gone.  In
   the 1990's era, dial-up modem banks were often badly underbuffered,



Jim Gettys              Expires February 27, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           IW10 Considered Harmful             August 2011


   and multiple simultaneous connections could easily cause excessive
   packet loss due to self-congestion either on the dialup port itself,
   or the dialup bank overall.

   Since the 1990's memory has become very cheap, and we now have the
   opposite problem: buffering in broad band equipment is much, much too
   large, larger than any sane amount, as shown by the Netalyzr
   [Netalyzr] and FCC data [Sundaresan], a phenomena I christened
   "bufferbloat" as we had lacked a good term for this problem.

   What is more, broadband equipment usually provides only a single
   queue unmanaged, bloated queue to the subscriber; a large impulse of
   packets for a single user will block other packets from other
   applications of that user, or to other users who share that
   connection.  This buffering is so large that slow start is badly
   damaged (TCP will attempt to run many times faster than it should
   until packet loss finally brings it back under control), and
   congestion avoidance is no longer stable, as I discovered in 2010
   [Gettys].

   I had expected and hoped that high performance would be achieved via
   HTTP Pipelining [HTTPPerf] and that web traffic would have have
   longer TCP sessions.  HTTP pipelining is painful due to HTTP's lack
   of any multiplexing layer and the lack of response numbering to allow
   out of order responses; "poor man's multiplexing" is possible, but
   complex.  The benefits of pipelining to the length of TCP sessions
   are somewhat less than one might naively presume, as significantly
   fewer packets are ultimately necessary.  But HTTP pipelining has
   never seen widespread browser deployment (though is supported by a
   high fraction of web servers).  You will seldom see packet loss by
   using many TCP connections simultaneously in today's Internet, as
   buffers are now so large they can absorb huge transients, sometimes
   even a megabyte or more.

   Web browsers (seeing no packet loss) changed from obeying the RFC2616
   requirement of two TCP connections to using 6 or even 15 TCP
   connections from a browser to a web server.  What is more, some web
   sites, called "sharded web sites," deliberately split themselves
   across multiple names to trick web browsers into even more profligate
   uses of TCP connections, and there is no way for a web client to
   easily determine a web site has been so engineered.

   A browser may then render a page with many embedded objects (e.g.
   images).  Current web browsers will therefore simultaneously open or
   reuse 6 or often many more TCP connections at once, and the initial
   congestion window of 4 packets may be sent from the same data center
   simultaneously to a user's broadband connection.  These packets
   currently enter the single queue in most broadband systems between



Jim Gettys              Expires February 27, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           IW10 Considered Harmful             August 2011


   the Internet and the home, and with no QOS or other fair queuing
   present, induce transient latency; your VOIP or gaming packet will be
   stuck behind this burst of web traffic until the burst drains.
   Similarly, current home routers often lack any QOS or sophisticated
   queuing to ensure fairness between different users.  The proposal by
   Chu, et. al. in to raise the initial congestion window from four to
   10, making the blocking and resulting latency and jitter problem up
   to 2.5 times worse.

   Note that broadband equipment is not the only overbuffered equipment
   in most user's paths.  Home routers, 3g wireless and the user's
   operating systems are usually even worse than broadband equipment.
   In a user's home, whenever the wireless bandwidth happens to be below
   that of the broadband connection, the bottleneck link is in the
   wireless hop, and so the problem may occur there rather than in the
   broadband connection.  It is the bottleneck transfer that matters;
   not the theoretical bandwidth of the links. 802.11g is at best
   20Mbps, but often much worse.  Other bottleneck points in the user's
   paths may also be lacking AQM.

   I believe the performance analysis in the draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd is
   flawed not by being incorrect in what it presents, but by overlooking
   the latency and jitter inflicted on other traffic that is sharing the
   broadband link, due to the large buffering in these links and
   typically single queue.  It is the damage the IW change would make to
   other real time applications sharing that link (including rtcweb
   applications), or what those sharing that link do to you that is the
   issue.

   Simple arithmetic to compute induced transient latency, even ignoring
   all overhead, comes up with scary results:

   Latency table

   +------+---------+---------+----------+--------+---------+----------+
   |    # |   ICW=4 |    Time |     Time | ICW=10 |    Time |     Time |
   | conn | (bytes) |  @1Mbps |  @50Mbps |        |  @1Mbps |  @50Mbps |
   +------+---------+---------+----------+--------+---------+----------+
   |    2 |   12000 |    96ms |   1.92ms |  30000 |   240ms |    4.8ms |
   |    6 |   36000 |   288ms |   5.76ms |  90000 |   720ms |     14ms |
   |   15 |   90000 |   720ms |   14.4ms | 225000 |  1800ms |     36ms |
   |   30 |  180000 |  1440ms |   28.8ms | 450000 |  3600ms |     72ms |
   +------+---------+---------+----------+--------+---------+----------+

                         Table 1: Unloaded Latency

   1 Mbps may be your fair share of a loaded 802.11 link. 50Mbps is near
   the top end of today's broadband.  Available bandwidths in other



Jim Gettys              Expires February 27, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           IW10 Considered Harmful             August 2011


   parts of the world are often much, much lower than in parts of the
   world where broadband has deployed.

   Simple experiments over 50Mbps home cable service against Google
   images confirm latencies that reach or sometimes double those in the
   table.  Steady-state competing TCP traffic will multiply these times
   correspondingly; even at 50Mbps, reliable, low latency VOIP can
   therefore be problematic.  From this table, it becomes obvious that
   QOS in shared wireless networks has become essential, if only because
   of this change in web browser behavior.  Note that the 2 connection
   rule still results in 100ms latencies on 1Mbps connections, which is
   already very problematic for VOIP by induction of jitter.  Two TCP
   connections are capable of driving a megabit link at saturation over
   most paths today even from a cold start with ICW=4.

   In the effort to maximise speed (as seen by a data center) web
   browsers/servers have turned web traffic into an delta function
   congesting the user's queue for extended periods.  Since the
   broadband edge is badly over-buffered as shown first by Netalyzr,
   packets are usually not lost, but instead, fill the one queue
   separating people from the rest of the Internet until they drain.

   Many carrier's telephony services are not blocked by this web traffic
   since the carriers have generally provisioned voice channels
   independently of data service; but most competing services such as
   Vonage or Skype will be blocked, as they must use the single,
   oversized queue.  While I do not believe this advantage was by
   design, it is an effect of bufferbloat and current broadband
   supporting only a single queue, at most accelerating acks ahead of
   other bulk data packets.  In the presently deployed broadband
   infrastructure, these other queues are usually unavailable for use by
   time sensitive traffic, and DiffServ [RFC3260] is not implemented in
   broadband head end equipment.  Therefore time sensitive packets share
   the same queue of non-time sensitive bulk data (HTTP) traffic.


3.  Solutions

   If HTTP pipelining were deployed, it would result in lower actual
   times to most users; fewer bytes are needed due to sharing packets
   among objects and requests, and much lower packet overhead and lower
   ack traffic and significantly better TCP congestion behavior.  While
   increasing the initial window someday may indeed make sense, it is
   truly a frightening to us to raise the ICW during this arms race
   given already deployed HTTP/1.1 implementations.  SPDY [SPDY] should
   have similar (or better) results, but requires server side support
   that will take time to develop and deploy, whereas most deployed web
   servers have supported pipelining for over a decade (sometimes with



Jim Gettys              Expires February 27, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           IW10 Considered Harmful             August 2011


   bugs, which is part of why it is painful to deploy web client HTTP
   pipelining).

   A full discussion of solutions that would improve latency for general
   web browsing without destroying realtime applications is beyond the
   scope of this ID.  I note a few quickly (which are not mutually
   exclusive) that can and should be persued.  They all have differing
   time scales and costs; all are desirable in my view, but the
   discussion would be much more than I can cover here.

   o  Deployment of HTTP/1.1 pipelining (with reduction of # of
      simultaneous connections back to RFC 2616 levels

   o  Deployment of SPDY

   o  DiffServ deployment in the broadband edge and its use by
      applications

   o  DiffServ deployment in home routers (which often unbeknownst to
      those not in the gaming industry, has already partially occurred
      due to its inclusion in the default Linux PFIFO_FAST line
      discipline).

   o  Some sort of "per user" or "per machine" queuing mechanism on
      broadband connections such that complete starvation of service for
      extended periods can be avoided.

   At a deeper and more fundamental level, individual applications (such
   as web browsers) may game the network with concurrent bad results to
   the user (or other users sharing that edge connection), and with the
   advent of Web sockets, even individual web applications may similarly
   game the network's behavior.  With the huge dynamic range of today's
   edge environments, we have no good way to know what a "safe" initial
   impulse of packets a server may send into the network in what
   situation.  Today there is no disincentive to applications abusing
   the network.  Congestion exposure mechanisms such as Congestion
   Exposure [ConEx] are badly needed, and some way to enable users (and
   their applications, on their behalf) to be aware of and react to
   badly behaved applications.


4.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.







Jim Gettys              Expires February 27, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           IW10 Considered Harmful             August 2011


5.  Security Considerations

   Current practice of web browsers, in concert with "sharded" web sites
   and changes to the initial congestion window, and the currently
   deployed broadband infrastructure can be considered a denial of (low
   latency) service attack on consumer's broadband service.


6.  Informative References

   [Cheshire]
              Cheshire, "It's the Latency, Stupid", 1996,
              <http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/
              Latency.html>.

   [Chu]      Chu, Dukkipati, Cheng, and Mathis, "Increasing TCP's
              Initial Window", 2011, <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd/>.

   [ConEx]    Briscoe, "congestion exposure (ConEx), re-feedback and re-
              ECN", 2005, <http://www.bobbriscoe.net/projects/refb/>.

   [Gettys]   Gettys, "Whose house is of glasse, must not throw stones
              at another", January 2011, <http://gettys.wordpress.com/
              2010/12/06/
              whose-house-is-of-glasse-must-not-throw-stones-at-
              another/>.

   [HTTPPerf]
              Nielsen, Gettys, Baird-Smith, Prud'hommeaux, Lie, and
              Lilley, "Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1,
              and PNG", June 1997, <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/
              Performance/Pipeline.html>.

   [Netalyzr]
              Kreibich, Weaver, Nechaev, and Paxson, "Netalyzr:
              illuminating the edge network.", November 2010, <http://
              www.icir.org/christian/publications/
              2010-imc-netalyzr.pdf>.

   [RFC2068]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., and T.
              Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
              RFC 2068, January 1997.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.




Jim Gettys              Expires February 27, 2012               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           IW10 Considered Harmful             August 2011


   [RFC3260]  Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
              Diffserv", RFC 3260, April 2002.

   [SPDY]     Belshe, "SPDY: An experimental protocol for a faster web",
              2011, <http://dev.chromium.org/spdy>.

   [Sundaresan]
              Sundaresan, de Donato, Feamster, Teixeira, Crawford, and
              Pescape, "Broadband Internet Performance: A View From the
              Gateway, Proceedings of SIGCOMM 2011", August 2011, <http:
              //gtnoise.net/papers/2011/sundaresan:sigcomm2011.pdf>.


Author's Address

   Jim Gettys
   Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
   21 Oak Knoll Road
   Carlisle, Massachusetts  01741
   USA

   Phone: +1 978 254-7060
   Email: jg@freedesktop.org




























Jim Gettys              Expires February 27, 2012               [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/