[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01
Transport Area Working Group S. Baset
Internet-Draft H. Schulzrinne
Intended status: Experimental Columbia University
Expires: December 9, 2009 June 7, 2009
TCP-over-UDP
draft-baset-tsvwg-tcp-over-udp-01
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
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 December 9, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
We present TCP-over-UDP (ToU), an instance of TCP on top of UDP. It
provides exactly the same congestion control, flow control,
reliability, and extension mechanisms as offered by TCP. It is
intended for use in scenarios where applications running on two hosts
may not be able to establish a direct TCP connection but are able to
exchange UDP packets.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Model of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Setup and tear down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Connection tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. MTU discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Congestion Control, Flow Control, and Reliability . . . . . . 6
3.1. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. NAT related issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Using ToU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. NAT bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. ToU, TLS, and DTLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Implementation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Changing IP protocol number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Simplified TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. TCP-like mechanism within an application layer protocol . 11
8.4. Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.5. TFRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.6. SCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.7. Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.1. Changes since draft-baset-tsvwg-tcp-over-udp-00 . . . . . 15
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
1. Introduction
Network address translators (NATs) pose a challenge for establishing
a direct TCP connection between hosts. While TCP connectivity works
when a TCP client is behind a NAT device and the server is not, it is
problematic when both the TCP client and server are behind different
NAT devices. Thus, applications running on hosts behind different
NAT devices may not be able to establish a direct TCP connection with
each other. Instead, these applications must establish a TCP
connection with a reachable host, which relays the traffic of the
application on the first host to the application on the second host
and vice versa. While this works, this is undesirable as it creates
a dependency on a reachable host. With certain NAT types, even
though the applications cannot establish a direct TCP connection,
they may be able to exchange UDP traffic by using techniques such as
ICE-UDP [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice]. Thus, using UDP is attractive for
such applications as it removes the dependency on a reachable host.
However, these applications have a requirement that the underlying
transport be reliable. Further, these applications may run on
machines with heterogeneous network connectivity, thereby requiring
flow control. UDP does not provide reliability, congestion control,
or flow control semantics. Therefore, these applications may either
use TCP with a reachable host, or invent their own reliable,
congestion control, and flow control transport protocol to establish
a direct connection.
We present TCP-over-UDP (ToU), a reliable, congestion control, and
flow control transport protocol on top of UDP. The idea is that TCP
is a well-designed transport protocol that provides reliable,
congestion control, and flow control mechanisms and these mechanisms
must be reused as much as possible. Further, a transport protocol
that provides reliability and flow control mechanisms must not be
tied to a specific application and must be designed to provide
modular functionality. To accomplish this, ToU almost uses the same
header as TCP which allows to easily incorporate TCP's reliable and
congestion control algorithms as defined in TCP congestion control
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis] document. In essence, ToU is not a new
protocol but merely an instance (or profile) of TCP over UDP minus
the TCP checksum, urgent flag, and urgent data.
We think that our approach is attractive for several reasons. First,
we are not proposing a new congestion control algorithm. Designing
new congestion control algorithms is complex, and requires a large
validation effort. Second, our approach takes advantage of existing
user-level-TCP (such as Daytona [Daytona] and MINET [MINET]) or TCP-
over-UDP implementations (such as atou [atou]). Finally, since we
are replicating TCP semantics over UDP, any TCP options such as
window scaling [RFC1323], selective acknowledgement option (SACK)
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
[RFC2018], or proposed TCP options such as TCP-Auth
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt] can be easily incorporated in ToU
without a new standardization effort.
1.1. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.2. Terminology
We use the terms such as congestion window (cwnd), initial window
(IW), restart window (RW), receiver window (rwnd), and sender maximum
segment size (SMSS) as defined in TCP congestion control
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis] document.
2. Model of Operation
Like TCP, ToU has a client and a server. A client connects to a TCP
server to establish a ToU connection. Below, we describe the key ToU
operations.
2.1. Setup and tear down
Like TCP, ToU uses a three-way handshake to establish a connection.
Similarly, it follows TCP's semantics in tearing down the connection.
2.2. Connection tracking
A key difference between TCP and UDP is that the former is
connection-oriented whereas the later is not. This means that a ToU
server must provide a way to keep track of existing connections. It
does so through the source port and IP address of the UDP packet.
2.3. MTU discovery
ToU uses packetization layer path MTU discovery [RFC4821] to discover
link MTU.
Some NAT devices placed in front of PPPoE devices perform MSS
clamping, i.e., they rewrite TCP's MSS option in a SYN packet from
1500 bytes to 1492 bytes. This operation is performed because PPPoE
has a MTU of 1492 bytes instead of Ethernet's 1500 bytes. MSS
clamping is considered a 'faster' way of discovering MTU in such
scenarios. MSS clamping does not work for ToU because NAT devices
treat ToU packets as a stream of UDP packets. It is an open question
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
how a ToU stack should deal with PPPoE MTU if faster MTU discovery is
desired. One option is to configure ToU stack with a default MTU of
1492 bytes.
3. Congestion Control, Flow Control, and Reliability
ToU follows the TCP congestion control algorithms described in TCP
congestion control [I-D.ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis] document. Thus, a ToU
sender goes through the slow-start and congestion-avoidance phases.
A ToU sender starts with an initial window (IW) following the
guidelines in RFC 3390 [RFC3390]. During slow start, a ToU sender
increments congestion window (cwnd) by at most SMSS bytes for each
ACK received that cumulatively acknowledges new data. It switches to
congestion avoidance when the congestion window (cwnd) exceeds slow
start threshold (ssthresh). A ToU receiver generates an
acknowledgement following the guidelines in Section 4.2 of TCP
congestion control [I-D.ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis] document. It
immediately generates an ACK when an out-of-order segment arrives.
The ToU sender uses the fast retransmit algorithm to detect and
repair losses, and fast recovery algorithm to govern the transmission
of new data until a non-duplicate ACK arrives. When ToU sender has
not received a segment for more than one retransmission timeout
(RTO), cwnd is reduced to the value of the restart window (RW) before
transmission begins. The ToU sender may also use selective
acknowledgement option (SACK) [RFC2018] to improve loss recovery when
multiple packets are lost from one window of data. Like TCP, it uses
receiver window (rwnd) to achieve flow control.
3.1. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
TCP-over-UDP operates above UDP. To use ECN [RFC3168] with ToU, a
UDP socket must allow ToU to set and retrieve the ECN bits in the IP
header. Currently, UDP sockets do not provide such a mechanism.
However, ToU assumes that in future, UDP sockets will provide this
mechanism so that ECN can be incorporated in the congestion control
mechanism of ToU.
ToU endpoints also need to determine whether they both support ECN.
Similar to ECE and CWR flags for TCP as defined in ECN [RFC3168], ToU
header includes these flags.
4. Header Format
A ToU header is like a TCP header [RFC0793] except that it does not
include source port, destination port, and checksum, as they are
already included in the UDP header. ToU header also does not include
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
the 1-bit Urgent flag and bit corresponding to this flags are
reserved in the ToU header. Further, it also does not include the
16-bit Urgent Pointer. The reason for excluding Urgent flag and
Urgent pointer is that they are only used in Telnet [RFC0854] which
is not a widely used protocol.
Between sequence number and acknowledgement number, ToU header has a
32-bit magic cookie to demultiplex it with other UDP-based protocols
such as STUN [RFC5389]. A ToU header also includes ECE and CWR flags
for negotiating ECN capabilities. These flags are defined in RFC
3168 [RFC3168]. The rest of the fields in a ToU header have exactly
the same meaning as those in a TCP header. The size of the fixed ToU
header is 16 bytes, whereas the size of fixed TCP header is 20 bytes.
The fixed ToU header and UDP header have a cumulative size of 24
bytes, four more than a fixed TCP header.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Magic Cookie |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Acknowledgment Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data | |C|E| |A|P|R|S|F| |
| Offset|Reserve|W|C|R|C|S|S|Y|I| Window |
| | |R|E| |K|H|T|N|N| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Header for TCP-over-UDP (ToU)
Figure 1
Since ToU header fields are exactly the same as TCP, we have borrowed
their descriptions from the TCP RFC [RFC0793].
Sequence Number (32-bits): Same as a TCP sequence number.
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
Magic Cookie (32-bits): A fixed value of 0x7194B32E in network byte
order to demultiplex ToU from other application layer protocols.
Acknowledgement Number (32-bits): Same as a TCP acknowledgement
number.
Data offset (4-bits): The number of 32-bit words in ToU header.
Like a TCP header, ToU header is an integral number of 32-bits
long.
Reserved (4-bits): Reserved for future use. Must be zero.
Control Bits (8-bits): 8-bits from left to right. Unlike TCP, the
Urgent bit is excluded.
CWR: Congestion window reduced flag as defined in RFC 3168
[RFC3168].
ECE: ECN-Echo flag as defined in RFC 3168 [RFC3168].
R: Reserved in ToU. In the TCP header, it is used for the Urgent
bit.
ACK: Acknowledgment field significant
PSH: PSH function.
RST: Reset the connection
SYN: Synchronize sequence numbers
FIN: No more data from sender
Window (16-bits): Same as the window in TCP header. The number of
data octets beginning with the one indicated in the acknowledgment
field which the sender of this segment is willing to accept.
Options: Same as TCP options.
Padding: Like TCP, the ToU header padding is used to ensure that the
ToU header ends and data begins on a 32 bit boundary. The padding
is composed of zeros.
5. NAT related issues
This section discusses how to determine if hosts should use ToU and
the impact of UDP NAT bindings on ToU connection management.
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
5.1. Using ToU
Hosts should only use ToU when establishing a direct TCP connection
fails. It is outside the scope of this draft to specify a mechanism
to determine if establishing a TCP connection fails between two hosts
behind NATs. Hosts may use ICE-TCP [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp] and
ICE-UDP [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice] to determine if hosts can directly
establish a TCP connection or directly exchange UDP packets,
respectively. If hosts fail to establish a direct TCP connection but
are able to directly exchange UDP packets, they can establish a ToU
connection.
5.2. NAT bindings
NAT devices maintain a binding for mapping an internal IP address and
port number to an external IP address and port number. The lifetime
of bindings for UDP is much smaller than TCP because UDP is a
connection less protocol. If an application does not send packets
over ToU, the UDP binding may be lost resulting in a broken ToU
connection.
ToU does not provide any mechanism to determine UDP binding lifetimes
or to refresh these bindings. Rather, an application establishing a
ToU connection can use STUN [RFC5389] to discover
[I-D.ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery] binding lifetimes and
periodically refresh these bindings. Running STUN in conjunction
with ToU has a design implication that a ToU packet must be
differentiated from a STUN packet. The magic cookie in a ToU packet
serves this purpose.
6. ToU, TLS, and DTLS
Transport layer security (TLS) [RFC5246] and Datagram transport layer
security (DTLS) [RFC4347] protocols provide privacy and data
integrity between two communicating applications. TLS is layered on
top of some reliable transport protocol such as TCP, whereas DTLS
only assumes a datagram service. A question is what is the layering
relationship between ToU protocol, TLS, and DTLS. Figure 2 shows
three possible options. Option-3 is not feasible since ToU layer
must be made aware of the size of header which DTLS may add.
Option-2 layers DTLS on top of ToU. Unlike TLS, DTLS carries a
sequence number because it assumes a datagram service. However, the
use of sequence number is made redundant because ToU provides
reliable and inorder delivery semantics. Therefore, Option-1 is most
feasible in which TLS is layered on top of ToU.
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
| TLS | | DTLS | | ToU |
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
| ToU | | ToU | | DTLS |
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
| UDP | | UDP | | UDP |
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
Layering options for ToU, TLS, DTLS
Figure 2
7. Implementation Guidelines
From the implementers perspective, the use of ToU should be as
modular as possible. Once way to achieve this modularity is to
implement ToU as a user-level library that provides socket-like
function calls to the applications. The library may have its own
thread of execution and can be instantiated at the start of the
program. The library implements the reliable, inorder, congestion
control, and flow control semantics of TCP. Applications can
interact with the ToU library through socket-like function calls.
8. Design Alternatives
ToU is strictly meant for scenarios where end-points desire to
establish a TCP connection but are unable to do so due to the
presence of NATs and firewalls. Below, we briefly discuss the design
alternatives and address possible criticisms for ToU.
8.1. Changing IP protocol number
One solution is to change the IP protocol number of TCP packets to
UDP before sending them on the wire. Similarly, when the packets are
received, the protocol number is changed back to TCP and the received
packets are passed to the TCP stack. The idea behind this approach
is to reuse TCP stack as much as possible. This approach suffers
from a number of problems. First, it requires a change in the
operating system kernel to rewrite IP protocol number of TCP packets
to UDP and it is unrealistic to expect all the OS kernels to
implement this change. Second, TCP checksum has a different offset
than a UDP checksum and many NAT devices parsing the UDP packet will
reject the packet because the UDP checksum is incorrect. Third,
since applications can use the same port number for TCP and UDP
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
ports, it is unclear how the kernel will correctly differentiate
between TCP and UDP packets for the same port number.
8.2. Simplified TCP
It may be argued that TCP semantics are too complicated and it might
be easier to define a protocol that adds retransmission of individual
UDP packets, and ACK mechanisms, and sequencing layer. However,
unless one is content with stop-and-wait congestion control (and
roughly modem data rates), it is necessary for a transport protocol
to have AIMD or rate-based congestion control (TFRC). As discussed
in Section 8.5, rate-based congestion control is not suitable for
mid-sized transfers and is not any simpler than AIMD. Further, since
hosts may have heterogeneous network connectivity, a transport
protocol needs to provide flow control. Moreover, it may not be easy
to validate a new transport protocol that only provides selective TCP
semantics.
8.3. TCP-like mechanism within an application layer protocol
In this approach, key TCP mechanisms such as reliability, congestion
control, and flow control are designed as part of the application
layer protocol. This approach has several disadvantages. First,
every application layer protocol that is unable to establish TCP
connections in the presence of NAT and firewalls but may use UDP will
need to invent its own reliable, congestion control and flow control
transport protocol. Second, it is non-trivial to get the first
implementations of a conceptually new protocol right. Third, any new
transport protocol, even if it is specified within an application
layer protocol must undergo a large validation effort. Finally, most
long-term successful protocols are those that provide modular
functionality, and not extremely narrowly-tailored protocols.
8.4. Tunneling
Another design option is to provide a VPN-like tunnel for sending and
receiving TCP packets over UDP. The idea is to use tunneling
solutions between hosts so that hosts can use the kernel TCP stack
and unmodified socket functions calls.
This approach is not desirable for several reasons. First, tunneling
solutions typically require support from kernel or require kernel
upgrades to work. Requiring kernel upgrades to work is not plausible
for an application that is trying to get deployment traction.
Second, establishing a tunnel typically requires root access to the
system and it is unrealistic for user-space applications to require
root access for proper functioning. Third, peer-to-peer
applications, which are expected to use ToU, establish a large number
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
of connections with other hosts. Even, if a tunneling solution does
not require any kernel support, such a solution consumes significant
bandwidth and CPU resources to maintain a large number of tunnels
with other hosts. Popular P2P applications such as Skype and
Bittorrent do not take advantage of a layer-3 tunneling solution.
8.5. TFRC
TFRC [RFC5348] is a congestion control mechanism (not a protocol)
that is designed for long-lived media streams. Its main benefit is
of smoothing rates to these media streams. It does not provide any
packet formats, reliability, or flow control. It's congestion
control mechanism is not suited for exchanging data objects that
range from a few dozen to a few hundred packets. The reason is that
TFRC is based on estimating loss rates within 8 loss intervals. With
a loss rate of 1%, this translates, very roughly, into 800 packets or
roughly 800 kB, before a reliable estimate of a better (higher) rate
is computed. Further, its main benefit, smoothing rates, is of no
importance to applications desiring to replicate TCP functionality
over UDP.
8.6. SCTP
SCTP [RFC4960] is significantly more complicated than TCP in its
implementation and its performance is generally the same, except in
circumstances involving head-of-line blocking. Further, SCTP will
have trouble getting traction in the consumer and enterprise Internet
space unless it (also) runs over UDP, as there seem to be few NATs
that know how to handle SCTP and thus it is effectively unusable by a
fair fraction of the Internet user population.
8.7. Criticism
A criticism of the ToU approach is that it is deceptively simple to
describe but difficult to implement and is likely to suffer from
broken implementations. We think that this assertion is not valid
for three reasons. First, ToU does not define a new congestion
control protocol and thus stays away from all the validation issues
associated with a new congestion control protocol. Second, a
reasonable implementation approach is to first implement connection
management and AIMD congestion control and test it with regular TCP
to determine if the implemented congestion control mechanisms are
broken. This implementation can be followed by implementing TCP
options such as window scaling and SACK. Third, ToU like other
protocols such as SIP will be implemented as a module or library and
is likely to mature over time.
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
9. Acknowledgements
The draft incorporates comments from the discussion on TSVWG and
P2PSIP mailing list. We also acknowledge an earlier draft by R.
Denis-Courmont on UDP transports.
10. IANA Considerations
TBD.
11. Security Considerations
ToU is subject to the same security considerations as TCP.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis]
Paxson, V., Blanton, E., and M. Allman, "TCP Congestion
Control", draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-05 (work in
progress), May 2009.
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt]
Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-04
(work in progress), March 2009.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC0854] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Protocol
Specification", STD 8, RFC 854, May 1983.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3390] Allman, M., Floyd, S., and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's
Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, September 2007.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5348] Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification",
RFC 5348, September 2008.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
12.2. Informative References
[Daytona] Pradhan, P., Kandula, S., Xu, W., Sheikh, A., and E.
Nahum, "Daytona : A User-Level TCP Stack", 2004,
<http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/~kandula/data/daytona.pdf>.
[I-D.ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery]
MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery
Using STUN", draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery-06
(work in progress), March 2009.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice]
Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols",
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19 (work in progress), October 2007.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp]
Rosenberg, J., "TCP Candidates with Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE)",
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp-07 (work in progress),
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TCP-over-UDP June 2009
July 2008.
[MINET] Dinda, P., "The Minet TCP/IP Stack", 2002, <http://
cs.northwestern.edu/~pdinda/minet/NWU-CS-02-08.pdf>.
[atou] Dunigan, T. and F. Fowler, "A TCP-over-UDP Test Harness",
2002, <http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~dunigan/atou.ps>.
Appendix A. Change Log
A.1. Changes since draft-baset-tsvwg-tcp-over-udp-00
o Updated introduction to reflect that it is difficult for two hosts
behind two different NATs to establish a TCP connection.
o Added PSH bit.
o Added MTU discovery to model of operation section.
o Added text on ECN to congestion control section.
o Added a section on NAT related issues.
o Updated text in design alternatives section.
Authors' Addresses
Salman A. Baset
Columbia University
1214 Amsterdam Avenue
New York, NY
USA
Email: salman@cs.columbia.edu
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
1214 Amsterdam Avenue
New York, NY
USA
Email: hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Baset & Schulzrinne Expires December 9, 2009 [Page 15]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.119, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/