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

Versions: (RFC 2581) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5681

Network Working Group                                          M. Allman
Internet-Draft                                                 V. Paxson
Expires: July 2006                                           ICIR / ICSI
                                                              E. Blanton
                                                       Purdue University
                                                            January 2006


                         TCP Congestion Control
                   draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt

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 defines TCP's four intertwined congestion control
    algorithms: slow start, congestion avoidance, fast retransmit, and
    fast recovery.  In addition, the document specifies how TCP should
    begin transmission after a relatively long idle period, as well as
    discussing various acknowledgment generation methods.

1. Introduction

    This document specifies four TCP [RFC793] congestion control
    algorithms: slow start, congestion avoidance, fast retransmit and
    fast recovery.  These algorithms were devised in [Jac88] and
    [Jac90]. Their use with TCP is standardized in [RFC1122].  Additional
    early work in additive-increase, multiplicative-decrease congestion
    control is given in [CJ89].


Expires: July 2006                                              [Page 1]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

    This document is an update of [RFC2001] and [RFC2581].

    In addition to specifying the congestion control algorithms, this
    document specifies what TCP connections should do after a relatively
    long idle period, as well as specifying and clarifying some of the
    issues pertaining to TCP ACK generation.

    Note that [Ste94] provides examples of these algorithms in action
    and [WS95] provides an explanation of the source code for the BSD
    implementation of these algorithms.

    This document is organized as follows.  Section 2 provides various
    definitions which will be used throughout the document.  Section 3
    provides a specification of the congestion control
    algorithms. Section 4 outlines concerns related to the congestion
    control algorithms and finally, section 5 outlines security
    considerations.

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
    document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2. Definitions

    This section provides the definition of several terms that will be
    used throughout the remainder of this document.

    SEGMENT: A segment is ANY TCP/IP data or acknowledgment packet (or
        both).

    SENDER MAXIMUM SEGMENT SIZE (SMSS): The SMSS is the size of the
        largest segment that the sender can transmit.  This value can be
        based on the maximum transmission unit of the network, the path
        MTU discovery [RFC1191] algorithm, RMSS (see next item), or other
        factors.  The size does not include the TCP/IP headers and
        options.

    RECEIVER MAXIMUM SEGMENT SIZE (RMSS): The RMSS is the size of the
        largest segment the receiver is willing to accept.  This is the
        value specified in the MSS option sent by the receiver during
        connection startup.  Or, if the MSS option is not used, 536
        bytes [RFC1122].  The size does not include the TCP/IP headers and
        options.

    FULL-SIZED SEGMENT: A segment that contains the maximum number of
        data bytes permitted (i.e., a segment containing SMSS bytes of
        data).

    RECEIVER WINDOW (rwnd) The most recently advertised receiver window.

    CONGESTION WINDOW (cwnd): A TCP state variable that limits the
        amount of data a TCP can send.  At any given time, a TCP MUST
        NOT send data with a sequence number higher than the sum of the
        highest acknowledged sequence number and the minimum of cwnd and

Expires: July 2006                                              [Page 2]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

        rwnd.

    INITIAL WINDOW (IW): The initial window is the size of the sender's
        congestion window after the three-way handshake is completed.

    LOSS WINDOW (LW): The loss window is the size of the congestion
        window after a TCP sender detects loss using its retransmission
        timer.

    RESTART WINDOW (RW): The restart window is the size of the
        congestion window after a TCP restarts transmission after an
        idle period (if the slow start algorithm is used; see section
        4.1 for more discussion).

    FLIGHT SIZE: The amount of data that has been sent but not yet
        acknowledged.

    DUPLICATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT: An acknowledgment is considered a
        "duplicate" in the following algorithms when (a) the
        receiver of the ACK has outstanding data, (b) the incoming
        acknowledgment carries no data, (c) the SYN and FIN bits are
        both off, (d) the acknowledgment number is equal to the greatest
        acknowledgment received on the given connection (TCP.UNA from
        [RFC793]) and (e) the advertised window in the incoming
        acknowledgment equals the advertised window in the last incoming
        acknowledgment.  Alternatively, a TCP that utilizes selective
        acknowledgments [RFC2018] can determine an incoming ACK is a
        "duplicate" if the ACK contains previously unknown SACK
        information.

3. Congestion Control Algorithms

    This section defines the four congestion control algorithms: slow
    start, congestion avoidance, fast retransmit and fast recovery,
    developed in [Jac88] and [Jac90].  In some situations it may be
    beneficial for a TCP sender to be more conservative than the
    algorithms allow, however a TCP MUST NOT be more aggressive than the
    following algorithms allow (that is, MUST NOT send data when the
    value of cwnd computed by the following algorithms would not allow
    the data to be sent).

3.1 Slow Start and Congestion Avoidance

    The slow start and congestion avoidance algorithms MUST be used by a
    TCP sender to control the amount of outstanding data being injected
    into the network.  To implement these algorithms, two variables are
    added to the TCP per-connection state.  The congestion window (cwnd)
    is a sender-side limit on the amount of data the sender can transmit
    into the network before receiving an acknowledgment (ACK), while the
    receiver's advertised window (rwnd) is a receiver-side limit on the
    amount of outstanding data.  The minimum of cwnd and rwnd governs
    data transmission.

    Another state variable, the slow start threshold (ssthresh), is used

Expires: July 2006                                              [Page 3]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

    to determine whether the slow start or congestion avoidance
    algorithm is used to control data transmission, as discussed below.

    Beginning transmission into a network with unknown conditions
    requires TCP to slowly probe the network to determine the available
    capacity, in order to avoid congesting the network with an
    inappropriately large burst of data.  The slow start algorithm is
    used for this purpose at the beginning of a transfer, or after
    repairing loss detected by the retransmission timer.

    IW, the initial value of cwnd, MUST be set using the following
    guidelines as an upper bound.

    If SMSS > 2190 bytes:
        IW = 2 * SMSS bytes and MUST NOT be more than 2 segments
    If (SMSS > 1095 bytes) and (SMSS <= 2190 bytes):
        IW = 3 * SMSS bytes and MUST NOT be more than 3 segments
    if SMSS <= 1095 bytes:
        IW = 4 * SMSS bytes and MUST NOT be more than 4 segments

    A detailed rationale and discussion of the IW setting is provided in
    [RFC3390].

    When larger initial windows are implemented along with Path MTU
    Discovery [RFC1191], and the MSS being used is found to be too
    large, the congestion window cwnd SHOULD be reduced to prevent
    large bursts of smaller segments.  Specifically, cwnd SHOULD be
    reduced by the ratio of the old segment size to the new segment
    size.

    The initial value of ssthresh SHOULD be arbitrarily high (for
    example, some implementations use the size of the advertised
    window), but ssthresh MUST be reduced in response to congestion.
    The slow start algorithm is used when cwnd < ssthresh, while the
    congestion avoidance algorithm is used when cwnd > ssthresh.  When
    cwnd and ssthresh are equal the sender may use either slow start or
    congestion avoidance.

    During slow start, a TCP increments cwnd by at most SMSS bytes for
    each ACK received that acknowledges new data.  Slow start ends when
    cwnd exceeds ssthresh (or, optionally, when it reaches it, as noted
    above) or when congestion is observed.  While traditionally TCP
    implementations have increased cwnd by precisely SMSS bytes upon
    receipt of an ACK covering new data, we RECOMMEND that TCP
    implementations increase cwnd, per:

        cwnd += min (N, SMSS)                      (2)

    where N is the number of previously unacknowledged bytes
    acknowledged in the incoming ACK.  This adjustment is part of
    Appropriate Byte Counting [RFC3465] and provides robustness against
    misbehaving receivers which may attempt to induce a sender to
    artificially inflate cwnd using a mechanism known as "ACK Division"
    [SCWA99].  ACK Division consists of a receiver sending multiple ACKs

Expires: July 2006                                              [Page 4]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

    for a single TCP data segment, each acknowledging only a portion of
    its data.  A TCP that increments cwnd by SMSS for each such ACK will
    inappropriately inflate the amount of data injected into the
    network.

    During congestion avoidance, cwnd is incremented by roughly 1
    full-sized segment per round-trip time (RTT).  Congestion avoidance
    continues until congestion is detected.  The basic guidelines for
    incrementing cwnd during congestion avoidance are:

      * MAY increment cwnd by SMSS bytes

      * SHOULD increment cwnd per equation (2)

      * MUST NOT increment cwnd by more than SMSS bytes

    We note that [RFC3465] allows for cwnd increases of more than SMSS
    bytes for incoming acknowledgments during slow start on an
    experimental basis, however such behavior is not allowed as part of
    the standard.

    The RECOMMENDED way to increase cwnd during congestion avoidance is
    to count the number of bytes that have been acknowledged by ACKs for
    new data.  (A drawback of this implementation is that it requires
    maintaining an additional state variable.)  When the number of bytes
    acknowledged reaches cwnd, then cwnd can be incremented by up to
    SMSS bytes.  Note that during congestion avoidance, cwnd MUST NOT be
    increased by more than SMSS bytes per RTT.  This method both allows
    TCPs to increase cwnd by one segment per RTT in the face of delayed
    ACKs and provides robustness against ACK Division attacks.

    Another common formula that a TCP MAY use to update cwnd during
    congestion avoidance is given in equation 3:

        cwnd += SMSS*SMSS/cwnd                     (3)

    This adjustment is executed on every incoming ACK that acknowledges
    new data.
    Equation (3) provides an acceptable approximation to the underlying
    principle of increasing cwnd by 1 full-sized segment per RTT.  (Note
    that for a connection in which the receiver is acknowledging
    every-other packet, (3) is less aggressive than allowed -- roughly
    increasing cwnd every second RTT.)

    Implementation Note: Since integer arithmetic is usually used in TCP
    implementations, the formula given in equation 3 can fail to
    increase cwnd when the congestion window is larger than SMSS*SMSS.
    If the above formula yields 0, the result SHOULD be rounded up to 1
    byte.

    Implementation Note: older implementations have an additional
    additive constant on the right-hand side of equation (3).  This is
    incorrect and can actually lead to diminished performance [RFC2525].


Expires: July 2006                                              [Page 5]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

    Implementation Note: some implementations maintain cwnd in units of
    bytes, while others in units of full-sized segments.  The latter
    will find equation (3) difficult to use, and may prefer to use the
    counting approach discussed in the previous paragraph.

    When a TCP sender detects segment loss using the retransmission
    timer and the given segment has not yet been retransmitted, the
    value of ssthresh MUST be set to no more than the value given in
    equation 4:

        ssthresh = max (FlightSize / 2, 2*SMSS)            (4)

    where, as discussed above, FlightSize is the amount of outstanding
    data in the network.

    On the other hand, when a TCP sender detects segment loss using the
    retransmission timer and the given segment has already been
    retransmitted at least once, the value of ssthresh MUST be set to no
    more than the value given in equation 5:

        ssthresh = max (ssthresh / 2, 2*SMSS)              (5)

    In other words, upon the first retransmission of a segment the value
    of ssthresh should be set to half the amount of outstanding data in
    the network, whereas on subsequent retransmissions the value of
    ssthresh should simply be halved.

    Implementation Note: an easy mistake to make is to simply use cwnd,
    rather than FlightSize, which in some implementations may
    incidentally increase well beyond rwnd.

    Furthermore, upon a timeout (as specified in [RFC2988]) cwnd MUST be
    set to no more than the loss window, LW, which equals 1 full-sized
    segment (regardless of the value of IW).  Therefore, after
    retransmitting the dropped segment the TCP sender uses the slow
    start algorithm to increase the window from 1 full-sized segment to
    the new value of ssthresh, at which point congestion avoidance again
    takes over.

3.2 Fast Retransmit/Fast Recovery

    A TCP receiver SHOULD send an immediate duplicate ACK when an out-
    of-order segment arrives.  The purpose of this ACK is to inform the
    sender that a segment was received out-of-order and which sequence
    number is expected.  From the sender's perspective, duplicate ACKs
    can be caused by a number of network problems.  First, they can be
    caused by dropped segments.  In this case, all segments after the
    dropped segment will trigger duplicate ACKs until the loss is
    repaired.  Second, duplicate ACKs can be caused by the re-ordering
    of data segments by the network (not a rare event along some network
    paths [Pax97]).  Finally, duplicate ACKs can be caused by
    replication of ACK or data segments by the network.  In addition, a
    TCP receiver SHOULD send an immediate ACK when the incoming segment
    fills in all or part of a gap in the sequence space.  This will

Expires: July 2006                                              [Page 6]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

    generate more timely information for a sender recovering from a loss
    through a retransmission timeout, a fast retransmit, or an advanced
    loss recovery algorithm, as outlined in section 4.3.

    The TCP sender SHOULD use the "fast retransmit" algorithm to detect
    and repair loss, based on incoming duplicate ACKs.  The fast
    retransmit algorithm uses the arrival of 3 duplicate ACKs (4
    identical ACKs without the arrival of any other intervening packets)
    as an indication that a segment has been lost.  After receiving 3
    duplicate ACKs, TCP performs a retransmission of what appears to be
    the missing segment, without waiting for the retransmission timer to
    expire.

    After the fast retransmit algorithm sends what appears to be the
    missing segment, the "fast recovery" algorithm governs the
    transmission of new data until a non-duplicate ACK arrives.  The
    reason for not performing slow start is that the receipt of the
    duplicate ACKs not only indicates that a segment has been lost, but
    also that segments are most likely leaving the network (although a
    massive segment duplication by the network can invalidate this
    conclusion).  In other words, since the receiver can only generate a
    duplicate ACK when a segment has arrived, that segment has left the
    network and is in the receiver's buffer, so we know it is no longer
    consuming network resources.  Furthermore, since the ACK "clock"
    [Jac88] is preserved, the TCP sender can continue to transmit new
    segments (although transmission must continue using a reduced cwnd,
    since loss is an indication of congestion).

    The fast retransmit and fast recovery algorithms are implemented
    together as follows.

    1.  On the first and second duplicate ACKs received at a sender, a
        TCP SHOULD send a segment of previously unsent data per
        [RFC3042] provided that the receiver's advertised window allows,
        the total FlightSize would remain less than or equal to cwnd
        plus 2*SMSS, and that new data is available for transmission.
        Further, the TCP sender MUST NOT change cwnd to reflect these
        two segments [RFC3042].  Note that a sender using SACK [RFC2018]
        MUST NOT send new data unless the incoming duplicate
        acknowledgment contains new SACK information.

    2.  When the third duplicate ACK is received, a TCP MUST set
        ssthresh to no more than the value given in equation 4.

    3.  The lost segment MUST be retransmitted and cwnd set to
        ssthresh plus 3*SMSS. This artificially "inflates" the
        congestion window by the number of segments (three) that have
        left the network and which the receiver has buffered.

    4.  For each additional duplicate ACK received (after the third),
        cwnd MUST be incremented by SMSS.  This artificially inflates
        the congestion window in order to reflect the additional segment
        that has left the network.


Expires: July 2006                                              [Page 7]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

    5.  Transmit a segment, if allowed by the new value of cwnd and the
        receiver's advertised window.

    6.  When the next ACK arrives that acknowledges new data, a TCP
        MUST set cwnd to ssthresh (the value set in step 1).  This is
        termed "deflating" the window.

        This ACK should be the acknowledgment elicited by the
        retransmission from step 1, one RTT after the retransmission
        (though it may arrive sooner in the presence of significant out-
        of-order delivery of data segments at the
        receiver). Additionally, this ACK should acknowledge all the
        intermediate segments sent between the lost segment and the
        receipt of the third duplicate ACK, if none of these were lost.

    Note: This algorithm is known to generally not recover efficiently
    from multiple losses in a single flight of packets [FF96].  Section
    4.3 below addresses such cases.

4. Additional Considerations

4.1 Re-starting Idle Connections

    A known problem with the TCP congestion control algorithms described
    above is that they allow a potentially inappropriate burst of
    traffic to be transmitted after TCP has been idle for a relatively
    long period of time.  After an idle period, TCP cannot use the ACK
    clock to strobe new segments into the network, as all the ACKs have
    drained from the network.  Therefore, as specified above, TCP can
    potentially send a cwnd-size line-rate burst into the network after
    an idle period.

    [Jac88] recommends that a TCP use slow start to restart
    transmission after a relatively long idle period.  Slow start
    serves to restart the ACK clock, just as it does at the beginning
    of a transfer.  This mechanism has been widely deployed in the
    following manner.  When TCP has not received a segment for more
    than one retransmission timeout, cwnd is reduced to the value of
    the restart window (RW) before transmission begins.

    For the purposes of this standard, we define RW = min(IW,cwnd).

    Using the last time a segment was received to determine whether or
    not to decrease cwnd can fail to deflate cwnd in the common case of
    persistent HTTP connections [HTH98].  In this case, a Web server
    receives a request before transmitting data to the Web client.  The
    reception of the request makes the test for an idle connection fail,
    and allows the TCP to begin transmission with a possibly
    inappropriately large cwnd.

    Therefore, a TCP SHOULD set cwnd to no more than RW before beginning
    transmission if the TCP has not sent data in an interval exceeding
    the retransmission timeout.


Expires: July 2006                                              [Page 8]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

4.2 Generating Acknowledgments

    The delayed ACK algorithm specified in [RFC1122] SHOULD be used by a
    TCP receiver.  When using delayed ACKs, a TCP receiver MUST NOT
    excessively delay acknowledgments.  Specifically, an ACK SHOULD be
    generated for at least every second full-sized segment, and MUST be
    generated within 500 ms of the arrival of the first unacknowledged
    packet.

    The requirement that an ACK "SHOULD" be generated for at least every
    second full-sized segment is listed in [RFC1122] in one place as a
    SHOULD and another as a MUST.  Here we unambiguously state it is a
    SHOULD.  We also emphasize that this is a SHOULD, meaning that an
    implementor should indeed only deviate from this requirement after
    careful consideration of the implications.  See the discussion of
    "Stretch ACK violation" in [RFC2525] and the references therein for a
    discussion of the possible performance problems with generating ACKs
    less frequently than every second full-sized segment.

    In some cases, the sender and receiver may not agree on what
    constitutes a full-sized segment.  An implementation is deemed to
    comply with this requirement if it sends at least one acknowledgment
    every time it receives 2*RMSS bytes of new data from the sender,
    where RMSS is the Maximum Segment Size specified by the receiver to
    the sender (or the default value of 536 bytes, per [RFC1122], if the
    receiver does not specify an MSS option during connection
    establishment).  The sender may be forced to use a segment size less
    than RMSS due to the maximum transmission unit (MTU), the path MTU
    discovery algorithm or other factors.  For instance, consider the
    case when the receiver announces an RMSS of X bytes but the sender
    ends up using a segment size of Y bytes (Y < X) due to path MTU
    discovery (or the sender's MTU size).  The receiver will generate
    stretch ACKs if it waits for 2*X bytes to arrive before an ACK is
    sent.  Clearly this will take more than 2 segments of size Y bytes.
    Therefore, while a specific algorithm is not defined, it is
    desirable for receivers to attempt to prevent this situation, for
    example by acknowledging at least every second segment, regardless
    of size.  Finally, we repeat that an ACK MUST NOT be delayed for
    more than 500 ms waiting on a second full-sized segment to arrive.

    Out-of-order data segments SHOULD be acknowledged immediately, in
    order to accelerate loss recovery.  To trigger the fast retransmit
    algorithm, the receiver SHOULD send an immediate duplicate ACK when
    it receives a data segment above a gap in the sequence space.  To
    provide feedback to senders recovering from losses, the receiver
    SHOULD send an immediate ACK when it receives a data segment that
    fills in all or part of a gap in the sequence space.

    A TCP receiver MUST NOT generate more than one ACK for every
    incoming segment, other than to update the offered window as the
    receiving application consumes new data [page 42, RFC793][RFC813].

4.3 Loss Recovery Mechanisms


Expires: July 2006                                              [Page 9]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

    A number of loss recovery algorithms that augment fast retransmit
    and fast recovery have been suggested by TCP researchers and
    specified in the RFC series.  While some of these algorithms are
    based on the TCP selective acknowledgment (SACK) option [RFC2018],
    such as [FF96,MM96a,MM96b,RFC3517], others do not require SACKs
    [Hoe96,FF96,RFC3782].  The non-SACK algorithms use "partial
    acknowledgments" (ACKs which cover previously unacknowledged data,
    but not all the data outstanding when loss was detected) to trigger
    retransmissions.  While this document does not standardize any of
    the specific algorithms that may improve fast retransmit/fast
    recovery, these enhanced algorithms are implicitly allowed, as long
    as they follow the general principles of the basic four algorithms
    outlined above.

    That is, when the first loss in a window of data is detected,
    ssthresh MUST be set to no more than the value given by equation
    (4).  Second, until all lost segments in the window of data in
    question are repaired, the number of segments transmitted in each
    RTT MUST be no more than half the number of outstanding segments
    when the loss was detected.  Finally, after all loss in the given
    window of segments has been successfully retransmitted, cwnd MUST be
    set to no more than ssthresh and congestion avoidance MUST be used
    to further increase cwnd.  Loss in two successive windows of data,
    or the loss of a retransmission, should be taken as two indications
    of congestion and, therefore, cwnd (and ssthresh) MUST be lowered
    twice in this case.

    We RECOMMEND that TCP implementers employ some form of advanced loss
    recovery that can cope with multiple losses in a window of data.
    The algorithms detailed in [RFC3782] and [RFC3517] conform to the
    general principles outlined above.  We note that while these are not
    the only two algorithms that conform to the above general principles
    these two algorithms have been vetted by the community and are
    currently on the standards track.

5.  Security Considerations

    This document requires a TCP to diminish its sending rate in the
    presence of retransmission timeouts and the arrival of duplicate
    acknowledgments.  An attacker can therefore impair the performance
    of a TCP connection by either causing data packets or their
    acknowledgments to be lost, or by forging excessive duplicate
    acknowledgments.  Causing two congestion control events back-to-back
    will often cut ssthresh to its minimum value of 2*SMSS, causing the
    connection to immediately enter the slower-performing congestion
    avoidance phase.

    In response to the ACK division attack outlined in [SCWA99] this
    document RECOMMENDS increasing the congestion window based on the
    number of bytes newly acknowledged in each arriving ACK rather than
    by a particular constant on each arriving ACK (as outlined in
    section 3.1).

    The Internet to a considerable degree relies on the correct

Expires: July 2006                                             [Page 10]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

    implementation of these algorithms in order to preserve network
    stability and avoid congestion collapse.  An attacker could cause
    TCP endpoints to respond more aggressively in the face of congestion
    by forging excessive duplicate acknowledgments or excessive
    acknowledgments for new data.  Conceivably, such an attack could
    drive a portion of the network into congestion collapse.

6.  Changes Between RFC 2001 and RFC 2581

    This document has been extensively rewritten editorially and it is
    not feasible to itemize the list of changes between the two
    documents. The intention of this document is not to change any of
    the recommendations given in RFC 2001, but to further clarify cases
    that were not discussed in detail in 2001. Specifically, this
    document suggests what TCP connections should do after a relatively
    long idle period, as well as specifying and clarifying some of the
    issues pertaining to TCP ACK generation.  Finally, the allowable
    upper bound for the initial congestion window has also been raised
    from one to two segments.

7.  Changes Relative to RFC 2581

    A specific definition for "duplicate acknowledgment" has been
    added, based on the definition used by BSD TCP.

    The initial window requirements were changed to allow Larger
    Initial Windows as standardized in [RFC3390].  Additionally, the
    steps to take when an initial window is discovered to be too large
    due to Path MTU Discovery [RFC1191] are detailed.

    The recommended initial value for ssthresh has been changed to say
    that it SHOULD be arbitrarily high, where it was previously MAY.
    This is to provide additional guidance to implementors on the
    matter.

    During slow start, the usage of Appropriate Byte Counting [RFC3465]
    with L=1*SMSS is explicitly recommended.  The method of increasing
    cwnd given in [RFC2581] is still explicitly allowed.  Byte counting
    during congestion avoidance is also recommended, while the method
    from [RFC2581] and other safe methods are still allowed.

    The treatment of ssthresh on retransmission timeout was clarified.
    Specifically, Equation (3) from [RFC2581] was split into Equations
    (4) and (5) in this document.

    The description of fast retransmit and fast recovery has been
    clarified, and the use of Limited Transmit [RFC3042] is now
    recommended.

    The restart window has been changed to min(IW,cwnd) from IW.  This
    behavior was described as "experimental" in [RFC2581].

    It is now recommended that TCP implementors implement an advanced
    loss recovery algorithm conforming to the principles outlined in

Expires: July 2006                                             [Page 11]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

    this document.

    The security considerations have been updated to discuss ACK
    division and recommend byte counting as a counter to this attack.

Acknowledgments

    The core algorithms we describe were developed by Van Jacobson
    [Jac88, Jac90].  In addition, Limited Transmit [RFC3042] was
    developed in conjunction with Hari Balakrishnan and Sally Floyd.
    The initial congestion window size specified in this document is a
    result of work with Sally Floyd and Craig Partridge
    [RFC2414,RFC3390].

    W. Richard ("Rich") Stevens wrote the first version of this document
    [RFC2001] and co-authored the second version [RFC2581].  This
    present version much benefits from his clarity and thoughtfulness of
    description, and we are grateful for Rich's contributions in
    elucidating TCP congestion control, as well as in more broadly
    helping us understand numerous issues relating to networking.

    We wish to emphasize that the shortcomings and mistakes of this
    document are solely the responsibility of the current authors.

    Some of the text from this document is taken from "TCP/IP
    Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols" by W. Richard Stevens
    (Addison-Wesley, 1994) and "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2: The
    Implementation" by Gary R. Wright and W.  Richard Stevens (Addison-
    Wesley, 1995).  This material is used with the permission of
    Addison-Wesley.

    Neal Cardwell, Noritoshi Demizu, Kevin Fall, Sally Floyd, Craig
    Partridge and Joe Touch contributed a number of helpful suggestions.

Normative References

    [RFC793] 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.

    [RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191,
        November 1990.

Informative References

    [CJ89] Chiu, D. and R. Jain, "Analysis of the Increase/Decrease
        Algorithms for Congestion Avoidance in Computer Networks",
        Journal of Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 17, no. 1,
        pp. 1-14, June 1989.

    [FF96] Fall, K. and S. Floyd, "Simulation-based Comparisons of
        Tahoe, Reno and SACK TCP", Computer Communication Review, July

Expires: July 2006                                             [Page 12]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

        1996. ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/sacks.ps.Z.

    [Flo94] Floyd, S., "TCP and Successive Fast Retransmits. Technical
        report", October 1994.
        ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/fastretrans.ps.

    [Hoe96] Hoe, J., "Improving the Start-up Behavior of a Congestion
        Control Scheme for TCP", In ACM SIGCOMM, August 1996.

    [HTH98] Hughes, A., Touch, J. and J. Heidemann, "Issues in TCP
        Slow-Start Restart After Idle", Work in Progress.

    [Jac88] Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", Computer
        Communication Review, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 314-329, Aug.  1988.
        ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.ps.Z.

    [Jac90] Jacobson, V., "Modified TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm",
        end2end-interest mailing list, April 30, 1990.
        ftp://ftp.isi.edu/end2end/end2end-interest-1990.mail.

    [MM96a] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "Forward Acknowledgment: Refining
        TCP Congestion Control", Proceedings of SIGCOMM'96, August,
        1996, Stanford, CA.  Available
        fromhttp://www.psc.edu/networking/papers/papers.html

    [MM96b] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "TCP Rate-Halving with Bounding
        Parameters", Technical report.  Available from
        http://www.psc.edu/networking/papers/FACKnotes/current.

    [Pax97] Paxson, V., "End-to-End Internet Packet Dynamics",
        Proceedings of SIGCOMM '97, Cannes, France, Sep. 1997.

    [RFC813] Clark, D., "Window and Acknowledgment Strategy in TCP", RFC
        813, July 1982.

    [RFC2001] Stevens, W., "TCP Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast
        Retransmit, and Fast Recovery Algorithms", RFC 2001, January
        1997.

    [RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S. and A. Romanow, "TCP
        Selective Acknowledgement Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.

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

    [RFC2414] Allman, M., Floyd, S. and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's
        Initial Window Size", RFC 2414, September 1998.

    [RFC2525] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Dawson, S., Fenner, W., Griner, J.,
        Heavens, I., Lahey, K., Semke, J. and B. Volz, "Known TCP
        Implementation Problems", RFC 2525, March 1999.

    [RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V., W. Stevens, TCP Congestion
        Control, RFC 2581, April 1999.

Expires: July 2006                                             [Page 13]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006


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

    [RFC3042] Allman, M., Balakrishnan, H. and S. Floyd, "Enhancing
        TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit", RFC 3042, January
        2001.

    [RFC3465] Mark Allman, TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate Byte
        Counting (ABC), RFC 3465, February 2003.

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

    [RFC3782] Sally Floyd, Tom Henderson, Andrei Gurtov, The NewReno
        Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm, RFC 3782, April
        2004.

    [SCWA99] Savage, S., Cardwell, N., Wetherall, D., and T. Anderson,
        "TCP Congestion Control With a Misbehaving Receiver", ACM
        Computer Communication Review, 29(5), October 1999.

    [Ste94] Stevens, W., "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols",
        Addison-Wesley, 1994.

    [WS95] Wright, G. and W. Stevens, "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2: The
        Implementation", Addison-Wesley, 1995.

Authors' Addresses

    Mark Allman
    ICIR / ICSI
    1947 Center Street
    Suite 600
    Berkeley, CA 94704-1198
    Phone: +1 440 243 7361
    EMail: mallman@icir.org
    http://www.icir.org/mallman/


    Vern Paxson
    ICIR / ICSI
    1947 Center Street
    Suite 600
    Berkeley, CA 94704-1198
    Phone: +1 510/642-4274 x302
    EMail: vern@icir.org
    http://www.icir.org/vern/


    Ethan Blanton
    Purdue University Computer Sciences
    1398 Computer Science Building

Expires: July 2006                                             [Page 14]

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-00.txt                           January 2006

    West Lafayette, IN  47907
    EMail: eblanton@cs.purdue.edu
    http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/eblanton/

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.

    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: July 2006                                             [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/