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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 5482

TCP Maintenance and Minor                                      L. Eggert
Extensions (tcpm)                                                  Nokia
Internet-Draft                                                   F. Gont
Intended status: Standards Track                                 UTN/FRH
Expires: May 16, 2008                                  November 13, 2007


                        TCP User Timeout Option
                       draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-07

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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   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



Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


   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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Changing the Local User Timeout  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  UTO Option Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Option Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.4.  Reserved Option Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Interoperability Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.1.  Middleboxes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.2.  TCP Keep-Alives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix A.  Document Revision History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16























Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


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, no acknowledgments will be received for
   any transmission attempt, including keep-alives, and the TCP
   connection will close when the user timeout occurs.

   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 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 appropriate.

   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.

   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 (three 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
   SYN-SENT, SYN-RECEIVED, or ESTABLISHED state [SOLARIS-MANUAL].

   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



Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


   currently not well supported.  One example of such scenarios are
   mobile hosts that change network attachment points based on current
   location.  Such hosts, maybe using Mobile IP [RFC3344], HIP [RFC4423]
   or transport-layer mobility mechanisms [I-D.eddy-tcp-mobility], 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, an
   orbiting node on a non-geostationary satellite might experience
   connectivity disruptions due to line-of-sight blocking by other
   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",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


3.  Operation

   Use of the TCP User Timeout Option can be enabled either on a per-
   connection basis, e.g., through a socket 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:

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

   ADV_UTO
      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
      USER TIMEOUT.

   ENABLED (Boolean)
      Flag that controls whether the UTO option is enabled for a
      connection.  Defaults to false.




Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


   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 the other end of the
   connection has explicitly allowed it (both ENABLED and CHANGEABLE are
   true).

   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, to
   prevent UTO options from the other end to override local application
   requests.  Alternatively, applications can set or clear CHANGEABLE
   directly through socket API calls.

   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, and 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.



Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


   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
   option.

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.

   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 5 discusses the security implications
   of long timeout values.




Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


   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:

   USER_TIMEOUT = min(U_LIMIT, max(ADV_UTO, REMOTE_UTO, L_LIMIT))

   Each field is to be interpreted as follows:

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

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

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

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

   L_LIMIT
      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 to be adopted for the user timeout of the connection on both
   ends, provided they are within the upper and lower limits.  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,



Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


   mobility hand-offs and routing instabilities.

   An upper limit (U_LIMIT) can reduce the effect of resource exhaustion
   attacks.  Section 5 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
   adapted.

   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
   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 UTO.

   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.







Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


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
   [RFC1122].

      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 = TBD  |   Length = 4  |G|        User Timeout         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   (One tick mark represents one bit.)

              Figure 1: Format of the TCP User Timeout Option

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

   Kind (8 bits)
      This MUST be TBD, i.e., the TCP option number [RFC0793] assigned
      by IANA upon publication of this document (see Section 6).  [[Note
      to the RFC Editor: Throughout this document, replace "TBD" with
      the TCP option number that IANA has allocated and remove this
      note.]]

   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
      seconds.

   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.





Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


3.4.  Reserved Option Values

   An 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.

   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.







Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


5.  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
   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.  Similarly, a host can start to
   accept 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 [RFC4346].  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,



Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


   such as resetting connections with long idle times first, can
   negatively affect service for intermittently connected, trusted peers
   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.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This section is to be interpreted according to
   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].

   This document does not define any new namespaces.  It requests that
   IANA allocate a new 8-bit TCP option number for the UTO option from
   the registry maintained at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters.


7.  Acknowledgments

   The following people have improved this document through thoughtful
   suggestions: Mark Allman, Caitlin Bestler, David Borman, Bob Braden,
   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 has been partly funded by Ambient Networks, a research
   project supported by the European Commission under its Sixth
   Framework Program.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
              Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an



Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
              draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08 (work in
              progress), October 2007.

   [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.

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

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.eddy-tcp-mobility]
              Eddy, W., "Mobility Support For TCP",
              draft-eddy-tcp-mobility-00 (work in progress), April 2004.

   [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.

   [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.

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

   [RFC4346]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.

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

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

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



Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


Appendix A.  Document Revision History

   [[Note to the RFC Editor: Section to be removed upon publication.]]

   +----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
   | Revision | Comments                                               |
   +----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
   | 07       | Addressed working group last call comments.            |
   | 06       | Includes a note on the limited space for TCP options   |
   |          | and miscelaneous editorial changes(suggested by        |
   |          | Anantha Ramaiah).  Includes possible enforcement of    |
   |          | per-outgoing-interface limits for the UTO, and         |
   |          | miscellaneous editorial changes (suggested by Alfred   |
   |          | Hoenes).  Includes relevant changes to reflect WG      |
   |          | consesus how the local user timeout should be selected |
   |          | (i.e., record both the current user timeout, and the   |
   |          | advertised UTO).                                       |
   | 05       | Made behavior on when to change/not change the local   |
   |          | UTO in response to incoming options consistent through |
   |          | the document.  This required some reshuffling of text  |
   |          | and also removed the need for the special "don't care" |
   |          | option value.                                          |
   | 04       | Clarified the results obtained by Medina et al.  Added |
   |          | text to suggest inclusion of the UTO in the first      |
   |          | non-SYN segment by the TCP that sent a SYN in response |
   |          | to an active OPEN.                                     |
   | 03       | Corrected use of RFC2119 terminology.  Clarified how   |
   |          | use of the TCP UTO is triggered.  Clarified reason for |
   |          | sending a UTO in the SYN and SYN/ACK segments.         |
   |          | Removed discussion of the SO_SNDTIMEO and SO_RCVTIMEO  |
   |          | socket options.  Removed text that suggested that a    |
   |          | UTO should be sent upon receipt of an UTO from the     |
   |          | other end.  Required minimum value for the lower limit |
   |          | of the user timeout.  Moved alternative solutions to   |
   |          | appendix.  Miscellaneous editorial changes.            |
   | 02       | Corrected terminology by replacing terms like          |
   |          | "negotiate", "coordinate", etc. that were left from    |
   |          | pre-WG-document times when the UTO was a more          |
   |          | formalized exchange instead of the advisory one it is  |
   |          | now.  Application-requested UTOs take precedence over  |
   |          | ones received from the peer (pointed out by Ted        |
   |          | Faber).  Added a brief mention of SO_SNDTIMEO and a    |
   |          | slightly longer discussion of SO_RCVTIMEO.             |








Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


   | 01       | Clarified and corrected the description of the         |
   |          | existing user timeout in RFC793 and RFC1122.  Removed  |
   |          | distinction between operating during the 3WHS and the  |
   |          | established states and introduced zero-second "don't   |
   |          | care" UTOs in response to mailing list feedback.       |
   |          | Updated references and addressed many other comments   |
   |          | from the mailing list.                                 |
   | 00       | Resubmission of                                        |
   |          | draft-eggert-gont-tcpm-tcp-uto-option-01.txt to the    |
   |          | secretariat after WG adoption.  Thus, permit           |
   |          | derivative works.  Updated Lars Eggert's funding       |
   |          | attribution.  Updated several references.  No          |
   |          | technical changes.                                     |
   +----------+--------------------------------------------------------+


Authors' Addresses

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

   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
   Argentina

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













Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           TCP User Timeout Option           November 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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.

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.


Intellectual Property

   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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Eggert & Gont             Expires May 16, 2008                 [Page 16]


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