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

Versions: (draft-ludwig-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 4015

Network Working Group                                      Reiner Ludwig
INTERNET-DRAFT                                         Ericsson Research
Expires: April 2004                                        Andrei Gurtov
                                                             TeliaSonera
                                                           October, 2003







                  The Eifel Response Algorithm for TCP
              <draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response-04.txt>



Status of this memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.


   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or cite them other than as "work in progress".


   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/lid-abstracts.txt


   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html



Abstract


   Based on an appropriate detection algorithm, the Eifel response
   algorithm provides a way for a TCP sender to respond to a detected
   spurious timeout. It adapts the retransmission timer to avoid further
   spurious timeouts, and can avoid - depending on the detection
   algorithm - the often unnecessary go-back-N retransmits that would
   otherwise be sent. In addition, the Eifel response algorithm restores
   the congestion control state in such a way that packet bursts are
   avoided.








Ludwig & Gurtov                                                 [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT            TCP - Eifel Response             October, 2003



Terminology


   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
   document, are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


   We refer to the first-time transmission of an octet as the 'original
   transmit'. A subsequent transmission of the same octet is referred to
   as a 'retransmit'. In most cases this terminology can likewise be
   applied to data segments as opposed to octets. However, when
   repacketization occurs, a segment can contain both first-time
   transmissions and retransmissions of octets. In that case, this
   terminology is only consistent when applied to octets. For the Eifel
   detection and response algorithms this makes no difference as they
   also operate correctly when repacketization occurs.


   We use the term 'acceptable ACK' as defined in [RFC793]. That is an
   ACK that acknowledges previously unacknowledged data. We use the TCP
   sender state variables 'SND.UNA' and 'SND.NXT' as defined in
   [RFC793]. SND.UNA holds the segment sequence number of the oldest
   outstanding segment. SND.NXT holds the segment sequence number of the
   next segment the TCP sender will (re-)transmit. In addition, we
   define as 'SND.MAX' the segment sequence number of the next original
   transmit to be sent. The definition of SND.MAX is equivalent to the
   definition of 'snd_max' in [WS95].


   We use the TCP sender state variables 'cwnd' (congestion window), and
   'ssthresh' (slow-start threshold), and the terms 'FlightSize', and
   'Initial Window (IW)' as defined in [RFC2581]. FlightSize is the
   amount of outstanding data at a given point in time. The IW is the
   size of the sender's congestion window after the three-way handshake
   is completed. We use the TCP sender state variables 'SRTT' and
   'RTTVAR', and the term 'RTO' as defined in [RFC2988]. In addition, we
   assume that the TCP sender maintains in the variable 'RTT-SAMPLE' the
   value of the latest round-trip time (RTT) measurement.


1. Introduction


   The Eifel response algorithm relies on a detection algorithm such as
   the Eifel detection algorithm defined in [RFC3522]. That document
   discusses the relevant background and motivation that also applies to
   this document. Hence, the reader is expected to be familiar with
   [RFC3522]. Note that alternative response algorithms have been
   proposed [BA02] that could also rely on the Eifel detection
   algorithm, and vice versa alternative detection algorithms have been
   proposed [BA03], [SK03] that could work together with the Eifel
   response algorithm.


   Based on an appropriate detection algorithm, the Eifel response
   algorithm provides a way for a TCP sender to respond to a detected
   spurious timeout. It adapts the retransmission timer to avoid further




Ludwig & Gurtov                                                 [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT            TCP - Eifel Response             October, 2003



   spurious timeouts, and can avoid - depending on the detection
   algorithm - the often unnecessary go-back-N retransmits that would
   otherwise be sent. In addition, the Eifel response algorithm restores
   the congestion control state in such a way that packet bursts are
   avoided.


      Note: A previous version of the Eifel Response algorithm also
      included a response to a detected spurious fast retransmit.
      However, since a consensus was not reached about how to adapt the
      duplicate acknowledgement threshold in that case, that part of the
      algorithm was removed for the time being.


2. Interworking with Detection Algorithms


   If the Eifel response algorithm is implemented at the TCP sender, it
   MUST be implemented together with a detection algorithm that is
   specified in an RFC.


   Designers of detection algorithms who want their algorithms to work
   together with the Eifel response algorithm should reuse the variable
   SpuriousRecovery with the semantics and defined values as specified
   in [RFC3522]. In addition, we define LATE_SPUR_TO (equal -1) as
   another possible value of the variable SpuriousRecovery. Detection
   algorithms should set the value of SpuriousRecovery to LATE_SPUR_TO
   if the detection of a spurious retransmit is based upon receiving the
   ACK for the retransmit (as opposed to the ACK for the original
   transmit). For example, this applies to detection algorithms that are
   based on the DSACK option [BA03].


3. The Eifel Response Algorithm


   The complete algorithm is specified in section 3.1. In sections 3.2
   to 3.5, we motivate the different steps of the algorithm.


3.1. The Algorithm


   Given that a TCP sender has enabled a detection algorithm that
   complies with the requirements set in Section 2, a TCP sender MAY use
   the Eifel response algorithm as defined in this subsection.


   If the Eifel response algorithm is used, the following steps MUST be
   taken by the TCP sender, but only upon initiation of loss recovery,
   i.e., when the timeout-based retransmit is sent. Note: The algorithm
   MUST NOT be reinitiated after loss recovery has already started. In
   particular, it may not be reinitiated upon subsequent timeouts for
   the same segment, and not upon retransmitting segments other than the
   oldest outstanding segment.


      (INIT)  Before the variables cwnd and ssthresh get updated when
              loss recovery is initiated, set a "pipe_prev" variable as
              follows:




Ludwig & Gurtov                                                 [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT            TCP - Eifel Response             October, 2003



                  pipe_prev <- max (FlightSize, ssthresh)


      (DET)   This is a placeholder for a detection algorithm that must
              be executed at this point. In case [RFC3522] is used as
              the detection algorithm, steps (1) - (6) of that algorithm
              go here.


      (RESP)  If SpuriousRecovery equals SPUR_TO, then
                  proceed to step (STO.1),


              else if SpuriousRecovery equals LATE_SPUR_TO, then
                  proceed to step (STO.2),


              else
                  proceed to step (DONE).


      (STO.1) Resume transmission off the top:


              Set
                  SND.NXT <- SND.MAX


      (STO.2) Adapt the Conservativeness of the Retransmission Timer:


              If the retransmission timer is implemented according to
              [RFC2988], then
                  if the TCP Timestamps option [RFC1323] is enabled for
                  this connection, then set
                      SRTT <- RTT-SAMPLE
                      RTTVAR <- RTT-SAMPLE/2


                  else set
                      RTTVAR <- max (2 * RTTVAR, SRTT)
                      SRTT <- 2 * SRTT


                  Set
                      RTO <- SRTT + max (G, 4*RTTVAR)
                  Restart the retransmission timer


              else
                  appropriately adapt the conservativeness of the
                  retransmission timer that is implemented.


              Proceed to step (ReCC).


      (ReCC)  Reversing the congestion control state:


              If the acceptable ACK has the ECN-Echo flag [RFC3168] set,
              then
                  proceed to step (DONE),


              else set




Ludwig & Gurtov                                                 [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT            TCP - Eifel Response             October, 2003



                  cwnd <- FlightSize + min (bytes_acked, IW)
                  ssthresh <- pipe_prev


              Proceed to step (DONE).


      (CWV)   Interworking with Congestion Window Validation (the
              variables 'T_last' and 'tcpnow' are defined in [RFC2861]):


              If congestion window validation is implemented according
              to [RFC2861], then set
                  T_last <- tcpnow


      (DONE)  No further processing.



3.2 Storing the Current Congestion Control State (step INIT)


   The TCP sender stores in pipe_prev what is considered a "safe" slow-
   start threshold (ssthresh) before loss recovery is initiated, i.e.,
   before the loss indication is taken into account. This is either the
   current FlightSize if the TCP sender is in congestion avoidance or
   the current ssthresh if the TCP sender is in slow-start. If the TCP
   sender later detects that it has entered loss recovery unnecessarily,
   then pipe_prev is used in step (ReCC) to reverse the congestion
   control state. Thus, until the loss recovery phase is terminated,
   pipe_prev maintains a memory of the congestion control state of the
   time right before the loss recovery phase was initiated. A similar
   approach is proposed in [RFC2861], where this state is stored in
   ssthresh directly after a TCP sender has become application-limited.


   There had been debates about whether the value of pipe_prev should be
   decayed over time, e.g., upon subsequent timeouts for the same
   outstanding segment. We do not require the decaying of pipe_prev for
   the Eifel response algorithm, and do not believe that such a
   conservative approach would be in place. Instead, we follow the idea
   of revalidating the congestion window through slow-start as suggested
   in [RFC2861]. That is, in step (ReCC), the cwnd is reset to a value
   that avoids large packet bursts, while ssthresh is reset to the value
   of pipe_prev. Note that [RFC2581] and [RFC2861] also do not require a
   decaying of ssthresh after it has been reset in response to a loss
   indication, or after a TCP sender has become application-limited.


3.3 Responding to Spurious Timeouts


3.3.1 Suppressing the Unnecessary go-back-N Retransmits (step STO.1)


   Without the use of the TCP timestamps option, the TCP sender suffers
   from the retransmission ambiguity problem [Zh86], [KP87]. Hence, when
   the first acceptable ACK arrives after a spurious timeout, the TCP
   sender must assume that this ACK was sent in response to the
   retransmit when in fact it was sent in response to the original




Ludwig & Gurtov                                                 [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT            TCP - Eifel Response             October, 2003



   transmit. Furthermore, the TCP sender must further assume that all
   other segments outstanding at that point were lost.


      Note: Except for certain cases where original ACKs were lost, the
      first acceptable ACK cannot carry any DSACK option [RFC2883].


   Consequently, once the TCP sender's state has been updated after the
   first acceptable ACK has arrived, SND.NXT equals SND.UNA. This is
   what causes the often unnecessary go-back-N retransmits. From that
   point on every arriving acceptable ACK that was sent in response to
   an original transmit will advance SND.NXT. But as long as SND.NXT is
   smaller than the value that SND.MAX had when the timeout occurred,
   those ACKs will clock out retransmits, whether those segments were
   lost or not.


   In fact, during this phase the TCP sender breaks 'packet
   conservation' [Jac88]. This is because the go-back-N retransmits are
   sent during slow-start. I.e., for each original transmit leaving the
   network, two retransmits are sent into the network as long as SND.NXT
   does not equal SND.MAX (see [LK00] for more detail).


   The use of the TCP timestamps option reliably eliminates the
   retransmission ambiguity problem. Once the Eifel detection algorithm
   has detected that a timeout was spurious, it is therefore safe to let
   the TCP sender resume the transmission with new data. Thus, the Eifel
   response algorithm changes the TCP sender's state by setting SND.NXT
   to SND.MAX in that case.


3.3.2 Adapting the Retransmission Timer (step STO.2)


   There is currently only one retransmission timer standardized for TCP
   [RFC2988]. We therefore only address that timer explicitly. Future
   standards that might define alternatives to [RFC2988] should propose
   similar measures to adapt the conservativeness of the retransmission
   timer.


   Since the timeout was spurious, the TCP sender's RTT estimators are
   likely to be off. If timestamps are enabled for this connection, a
   new and valid RTT measurement (RTT-SAMPLE) can be derived from the
   acceptable ACK. It is therefore suggested to reinitialize the RTT
   estimators from RTT-SAMPLE according to rule (2.2) of RFC2988. Note
   that this RTT-SAMPLE will be relatively large since it will include
   the delay spike that caused the spurious timeout in the first place.
   If timestamps are not enabled for this connection, the TCP sender
   should instead double SRTT and also make RTTVAR more conservative.


   To have the new RTO become effective, the retransmission timer needs
   to be restarted. This is consistent with [RFC2988] which recommends
   restarting the retransmission timer with the arrival of an acceptable
   ACK.





Ludwig & Gurtov                                                 [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT            TCP - Eifel Response             October, 2003



3.4 Reversing the Congestion Control State (step ReCC)


   When a TCP sender enters loss recovery, it also assumes that is has
   received a congestion indication. In response to that it reduces
   cwnd, and ssthresh. However, once the TCP sender detects that the
   loss recovery has been falsely triggered, this reduction was
   unnecessary. In fact, no congestion indication has been received. We
   therefore believe that it is safe to revert to the previous
   congestion control state following the approach of revalidating the
   congestion window as outlined below. This is unless the acceptable
   ACK signals congestion through the ECN-Echo flag [RFC3168]. In that
   case, the TCP sender MUST refrain from reversing congestion control
   state.


   If the ECN-Echo flag is not set, cwnd is reset to the sum of the
   current FlightSize and the minimum of IW and the number of bytes that
   have been acknowledged by the acceptable ACK. Note that the value of
   cwnd must not be changed any further for that ACK, and that the value
   of FlightSize at this point in time may be different from the value
   of FlightSize in step (INIT). The value of IW puts a limit on the
   size of the packet burst that the TCP sender may send into the
   network after the Eifel response algorithm has terminated. The value
   of IW is considered an acceptable burst size. It is the amount of
   data that a TCP sender may send into a yet "unprobed" network at the
   beginning of a connection.


   The TCP sender is then forced into slow-start by resetting ssthresh
   to the value of pipe_prev. As a result, the TCP sender either
   immediately resumes probing the network for more bandwidth in
   congestion avoidance, or it first slow-starts to what is considered a
   "safe" operating point for the congestion window. In some cases, this
   can mean that the first few acceptable ACKs that arrive will not
   clock out any data segments.


3.5 Interworking with the Congestion Window Validation Algorithm


   An implementation of the Congestion Window Validation (CWV) algorithm
   [RFC2861] could potentially misinterpret a delay spike that caused a
   spurious timeout as a phase where the TCP sender had been
   application-limited. To prevent the triggering of CWV algorithm in
   this case, the variable 'T_last' defined in [RFC2861] is reset.


4. Non-Conservative Advanced Loss Recovery after Spurious Timeouts


   A TCP sender MAY implement an optimistic form of advanced loss
   recovery after a spurious timeout has been detected as motivated in
   this section. Such a scheme MUST be terminated after the highest
   sequence number outstanding when the spurious timeout was detected
   has been acknowledged.






Ludwig & Gurtov                                                 [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT            TCP - Eifel Response             October, 2003



   We have studied environments where spurious timeouts and multiple
   losses from the same flight of packets often coincide [GL02]. In such
   a case the oldest outstanding segment does arrive at the TCP
   receiver, but one or more packets from the remaining outstanding
   flight are lost. In those environments, TCP-Reno's performance
   suffers if the Eifel response algorithm is operated without an
   advanced loss recovery scheme such as NewReno [RFC2582], or SACK-
   based schemes [RFC2018], [RFC3517]. The reason is TCP-Reno's
   aggressiveness after a spurious timeout. Even though it breaks
   'packet conservation' (see Section 2.2.1) when blindly retransmitting
   all outstanding segments, it usually recovers all packets lost from
   that flight within a single round-trip time. On the contrary, the
   more conservative TCP-Reno/Eifel is often forced into another
   (backed-off) timeout.


   However, in a more recent study [GL03], we found that the mentioned
   advanced loss recovery schemes are often too conservative to compete
   against TCP-Reno's blind go-back-N in terms of quickly recovering
   multiple losses after a spurious timeout. The problem with the
   NewReno scheme is that it does not exploit knowledge (e.g., provided
   through SACK options) about which segments were lost. The problem
   with the conservative SACK-based scheme [RFC3517] is that it waits
   for three SACKs before it retransmits a lost segment. This may often
   lead to a second - and in this case genuine - (potentially backed-
   off) timeout. In those cases TCP-Reno's loss recovery is often
   quicker due the blind go-back-N. This could be viewed as a
   disincentive to the deployment of the Eifel response algorithm.


   We therefore suggest that a TCP sender MAY implement an optimistic
   (non-conservative) form of advanced loss recovery after a spurious
   timeout has been detected, if the following guidelines are met:


      - Packet Conservation: The TCP sender may not have more segments
        (counting both original transmits and retransmits) in flight
        than indicated by the congestion window.


      - A retransmit may only be sent when a potential loss has been
        indicated. For example, a single duplicate ACK is such an
        indication; potentially with the corresponding SACK info in case
        the SACK option is enabled for the connection.


   We have developed and evaluated such a scheme (a variant of NewReno
   that exploits SACK info) in [GL03] that shows good results.


5. IPR Considerations


   The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
   regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
   document. For more information consult the online list of claimed
   rights at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.





Ludwig & Gurtov                                                 [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT            TCP - Eifel Response             October, 2003



   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.


6. Security Considerations


   There is a risk that a detection algorithm is fooled by spoofed ACKs
   that make genuine retransmits appear to the TCP sender as spurious
   retransmits. When such a detection algorithm is run together with the
   Eifel response algorithm, this could effectively disable congestion
   control at the TCP sender. Should this become a concern, the Eifel
   response algorithm SHOULD only be run together with detection
   algorithms that are known to be safe against such "ACK spoofing
   attacks".


   For example, the safe variant of the Eifel detection algorithm
   [RFC3522], is a reliable method to protect against this risk.


Acknowledgments


   Many thanks to Keith Sklower, Randy Katz, Michael Meyer, Stephan
   Baucke, Sally Floyd, Vern Paxson, Mark Allman, Ethan Blanton, Pasi
   Sarolahti, Alexey Kuznetsov, and Yogesh Swami for many discussions
   that contributed to this work.


Normative References


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


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


   [RFC2582] Floyd, S. and T. Henderson, The NewReno Modification to
             TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm, RFC 2582, April 1999.


   [RFC2883] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M., Podolsky, M. and A.
             Romanow, An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement
            (SACK) Option for TCP, RFC 2883, July 2000.


   [RFC2861] Handley, M., Padhye, J. and S. Floyd, TCP Congestion Window




Ludwig & Gurtov                                                 [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT            TCP - Eifel Response             October, 2003



             Validation, RFC 2861, June 2000.


   [RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, R. and D. Borman, TCP Extensions for
             High Performance, RFC 1323, May 1992.


   [RFC3522] Ludwig, R. and M. Meyer, The Eifel Detection Algorithm for
             TCP, RFC3522, April 2003.


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


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


   [RFC793]  Postel, J., Transmission Control Protocol, RFC793,
             September 1981.


   [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S. and D. Black, The Addition of
             Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP, RFC 3168,
             September 2001


Informative References


   [BA02]    Blanton, E. and M. Allman, On Making TCP More Robust to
             Packet Reordering, ACM Computer Communication Review,
             Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2002.


   [BA03]    Blanton, E. and M. Allman, Using TCP DSACKs and SCTP
             Duplicate TSNs to Detect Spurious Retransmissions, draft-
             ietf-tsvwg-dsack-use-02.txt (work in progress),
             October 2003.


   [RFC3517] Blanton, E., Allman, M., Fall, K. and L. Wang,
             A Conservative SACK-based Loss  Recovery Algorithm for TCP,
             RFC3517, April 2003.


   [GL02]    Gurtov, A. and R. Ludwig, Evaluating the Eifel Algorithm
             for TCP in a GPRS Network, In Proceedings of the European
             Wireless Conference, February 2002.


   [GL03]    Gurtov, A. and R. Ludwig, Responding to Spurious Timeouts
             in TCP, In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 03, .


   [Jac88]   Jacobson, V., Congestion Avoidance and Control, In
             Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 88.


   [KP87]    Karn, P. and C. Partridge, Improving Round-Trip Time
             Estimates in Reliable Transport Protocols, In Proceedings
             of ACM SIGCOMM 87.


   [LK00]    Ludwig, R. and R. H. Katz, The Eifel Algorithm: Making TCP




Ludwig & Gurtov                                                [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT            TCP - Eifel Response             October, 2003



             Robust Against Spurious Retransmissions, ACM Computer
             Communication Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, January 2000.


   [SK03]    Sarolahti, P. and M. Kojo, F-RTO: An Algorithm for
             Detecting Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP and
             SCTP, draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-frto-00.txt (work in progress),
             October 2003.


   [WS95]    Wright, G. R. and W. R. Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated,
             Volume 2 (The Implementation), Addison Wesley,
             January 1995.


   [Zh86]    Zhang, L., Why TCP Timers Don't Work Well, In Proceedings
             of ACM SIGCOMM 88.


Author's Address


     Reiner Ludwig
     Ericsson Research (EED)
     Ericsson Allee 1
     52134 Herzogenrath, Germany
     Email: Reiner.Ludwig@ericsson.com


     Andrei Gurtov
     TeliaSonera Finland
     P.O. Box 970, FIN-00051 Sonera
     Helsinki, Finland
     Email: andrei.gurtov@teliasonera.com
     Homepage: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/gurtov



This Internet-Draft expires in April 2004.























Ludwig & Gurtov                                                [Page 11]

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