[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Transport Area Working Group                                  B. Briscoe
Internet-Draft                                                  BT & UCL
Expires: April 20, 2006                                       A. Jacquet
                                                            A. Salvatori
                                                        October 17, 2005

     Re-ECN: Adding Accountability for Causing Congestion to TCP/IP

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).


   This document introduces a new feedback protocol for explicit
   congestion notification (ECN), termed re-ECN.  It arranges the ECN
   field of each packet so that, as it arrives at each router, the
   relative rates of each codepoint will give a truthful prediction of
   congestion on the remainder of the path.  It also outlines mechanisms
   at the network edge that ensure the dominant selfish strategy of both

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   network domains and end-points will be to set these codepoints
   honestly and to respond correctly to path congestion, despite
   conflicting interests.  Although these mechanisms influence
   incentives, they use engineering mechanisms like throttling and
   dropping, rather than requiring changes to end-user pricing.  The
   protocol can be deployed incrementally around unmodified routers
   without requiring changes to IP.

Authors' Statement: Status

   This document is posted as an initial Internet-Draft with the intent
   (at least that of the authors) to eventually progress to standards

   However, it proposes using the ECN codepoints currently set aside for
   the experimental ECN nonce.  The protocol proposed here aims to allow
   networks to be able to police cheating senders and receivers and to
   police neighbouring networks.  On the other hand, the ECN nonce aims
   to allow senders to detect cheating receivers.

   Although the proposed scheme addresses a much more pressing problem,
   compromises in its strength have had to be introduced in order to
   make it incrementally deployable.  We therefore seek the opinion of
   the Internet Community on whether the resulting strength is
   sufficient to warrant standards action.

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Protocol Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Imprecise Protocol Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Precise Protocol Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Transport Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1.  TCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.1.1.  Re-ECT mode: Full re-ECN capabable transport . . . . . 13
       4.1.2.  Re-ECT-Compat mode: Re-ECT Sender with a Vanilla
               or Nonce ECT Receiver  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.1.3.  Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.1.4.  Flow Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.2.  Other Transports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       4.2.1.  Guidelines for Adding Re-feedback to Other
               Transports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   5.  Network Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.  Non-Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.1.  Policing Per-Flow Congestion Response  . . . . . . . . . . 20
       7.1.1.  Incentive Framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       7.1.2.  Dropper  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       7.1.3.  Per-flow Policer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       7.1.4.  Inter-domain Policing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       7.1.5.  Limitations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       7.1.6.  Other Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  Incremental Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   9.  Architectural Rationale {ToDo:}  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   10. Simulations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   11. Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   13. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   14. Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   15. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 27

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

1.  Introduction

   The current Internet architecture trusts hosts to respond voluntarily
   to congestion.  Limited evidence shows that the large majority of
   end-points on the Internet comply with a TCP-friendly response to
   congestion.  But telephony (and increasingly video) services over the
   best efforts Internet are attracting the interest of major commercial
   operations.  Most of these applications do not respond to congestion
   at all.  Those that can switch to lower rate codecs, still have a
   lower bound below which they become unresponsive.

   Even TCP-friendly applications can cause a disproportionate amount of
   congestion, simply by using multiple flows or by transferring data
   continuously.  Also, of course, the Internet Architecture has few
   defences against denial of service attacks that combine both
   problems: unresponsiveness to congestion and flooding with multiple

   Applications that need (or choose) to be unresponsive to congestion
   can effectively steal whatever share of bottleneck resources they
   want from responsive flows.  Whether or not such free-riding is
   common, inability to prevent it increases the risk of poor returns
   for investors in network infrastructure, leading to under-investment.
   An increasing proportion of unresponsive, free-riding demand coupled
   with persistent under-supply is a broken economic cycle.  Therefore,
   if the current, largely co-operative consensus continues to erode,
   congestion collapse could become more common in various parts of the
   Internet [RFC3714].

   The problem is architectural because the information needed for
   policing is at the other end of the Internet from the point where
   control is needed.  Policing is only truly effective at the first
   ingress into an internetwork, but path congestion is only visible at
   the last egress.  We believe non-architectural approaches (see
   Section 11) to this problem are unlikely to offer more than partial

   This document proposes a simple realignment of the Internet's
   feedback architecture, termed 're-feedback' [Re-fb].  The word is
   short for either receiver-aligned or re-inserted feedback.

   Changing the Internet's feedback architecture seems to imply
   considerable upheaval.  But, this document proposes changes that
   could be deployed incrementally at the transport layer (we focus on
   TCP), around unmodified routers using the existing fields in IP (v4
   or v6).  However, we stress that the limited space in the IP header
   heavily reduces the responsiveness of the scheme for dealing with
   deliberate dynamic attacks (see Section 7.1.5 for this and other

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005


   Conceptually, the solution could hardly be simpler.  Packet header
   fields accumulate path information as data traverses the path, just
   as can already be done with time to live (TTL) or explicit congestion
   notification (ECN) [RFC3168] (this document focuses only on ECN).
   The ECN marking rate currently always starts at the datum of zero at
   the sender.  Instead we expect the sender to try to make packets
   arrive at the destination with a marking rate averaging around an
   agreed datum.  We define one of the ECT codepoints as negative so
   that we can set this datum to zero.  As each receiver feeds back
   congestion marking arriving in packets, the sender continuously
   adjusts subsequent packets in order to continue to hit the zero
   target on average.

   For flows from transports using re-feedback each packet arrives at
   each network element carrying a view of its own downstream path,
   albeit a round trip ago and averaged over multiple packets.  Most
   usefully, full path congestion becomes visible at the first ingress.

   "Accountability for congestion" implies being able to identify who is
   responsible.  But congestion is a link/network/transport layer
   issue---not appropriate layers for adding individual or
   organisational identity.  The approach we take simply relocates
   information about path congestion from the egress to the ingress.
   Then congestion can be associated with the interface that is directly
   and ultimately responsible for causing the congestion (whether
   intentionally or not).  Identifying the ingress interface is a
   sufficient hook for tracing the (ir)responsible party if required.
   More usefully, it is the exactly the place to police or throttle in
   order to directly mitigate congestion, rather than having to trace
   the (ir)responsible party.

   Importantly, the scheme is recursive: a whole network harbouring
   users causing congestion in downstream networks can be held
   responsible or policed.  But the scheme correctly discounts
   congestion in networks upstream of the inter-domain interface, which
   is their own problem.

   That is all well and good, but we still don't seem to have solved the
   problem.  It seems naive to hold the sender accountable by trusting
   fields that depend on the honesty of both the sender and receiver---
   those with most to gain from lying.  However, having re-aligned the
   congestion marking datum to the receiver, we show how the egress
   operator can ensure that end users will lose more than they gain by
   being dishonest, so the dominant strategy will be honesty.

   Operators can deploy 'droppers' (Section 7.1.2) at their egress

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   interfaces to their end-customers to check whether traffic leaving
   the internetwork is hitting the zero target.  Flows persistently
   below the target at the destination must come from a source that is
   deliberately understating path congestion.  The dropper can apply
   sanctions to these flows---to ensure they lose more than they gain.

   Further, in Section 7.1.1 we explain in outline why re-aligning
   feedback allows us to arrange for honesty to be everyone's dominant
   strategy---not only end-users, but also networks.

   Building on the resulting trustworthiness of downstream path
   congestion metrics at the ingress, it is possible to build a rate
   equation policer (or other types of congestion-based policers
   depending on what the network operator wants to achieve).  The
   details are outside the scope of this document, but we describe the
   general principles in Section 7.1.3 using TCP as a concrete example.
   We also describe an example passive bulk policer for inter-domain

   The structure of the rest of this document is as follows.  First we
   provide an overview of how the re-ECN protocol works as a whole using
   TCP/IP as an example (Section 3).  Then we describe the network layer
   functions generic to all transports (Section 5) before describing the
   changes necessary in TCP and guidelines on adding the re-feedback
   capability to other transports (Section 4).  We complete the protocol
   engineering sections of the document by clarifying why some issues
   such as encryption and tunnels are actually non-issues by deliberate
   design (Section 6).

   The rest of the document starts by describing accountability
   applications that can be built over the protocol, such as the dropper
   and policer already outlined, but also briefly outlines other
   possibilities like DoS mitigation and using congestion accountability
   to achieve end-to-end differentiated QoS (Section 7).  Then
   deployment issues discussed throughout the document are brought
   together in Section 8, which leads in to a brief section explaining
   the somewhat subtle rationale for the design, from an architectural
   perspective (Section 9).  We end by referring to various simulations
   (Section 10), describing related work (Section 11), listing security
   considerations (Section 13) and finally drawing conclusions
   (Section 14).

2.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

3.  Protocol Overview

   First we briefly recap the essentials of the ECN protocol [RFC3168].
   Two bits in the IP protocol (v4 or v6) are assigned to the ECN field.
   The sender clears the field to "00" (Not-ECT) if either end-point
   transport is not ECN-capable.  Otherwise it indicates an ECN-capable
   transport (ECT) using either of the two code-points "10" or "01"
   (ECT(0) and ECT(1) resp.).  Routers probabilistically set "11" if
   congestion is experienced (CE).  The choice of two ECT code-points
   permitted future flexibility, optionally allowing the sender to
   encode the experimental ECN nonce [RFC3168] in the packet stream.

   The ECN nonce is an elegant scheme that allows the sender to detect
   if a receiver tries to claim no congestion was experienced when it
   fact it was (whether drop or ECN marking).  The sender chooses
   between the two ECT codepoints in a pseudo-random sequence.  Then,
   whenever the network marks a packet with CE, the receiver has to
   guess which ECT codepoint was overwritten, with only a 50:50 chance
   of being correct each time.

   We use the flexibility of the two ECT codepoints originally provided
   for the ECN nonce, in a scheme we call re-ECN.  However, the re-ECN
   protocol addresses a much wider range of cheating problems, which
   includes the one addressed by the ECN nonce.

   The assumption behind the ECN nonce is that a sender will want to
   detect whether a receiver is suppressing congestion feedback.  This
   is only true if the sender's interests are aligned with the
   network's, or with the community of users as a whole.  This may be
   true for certain large senders, who are under close scrutiny and have
   a reputation to maintain.  But we have to deal with a more hostile
   world, where traffic may be dominated by peer-to-peer transfers,
   rather than downloads from a few popular sites.  Often the 'natural'
   self-interest of a sender is not aligned with the interests of other
   users.  It wishes to transfer data quickly to the receiver as much as
   the receiver wants the data quickly.

   The re-ECN protocol enables policing of an agreed rate-response to
   congestion (eg TCP-friendliness) at the sender's interface with the
   internetwork.  It also ensures downstream networks can police their
   upstream neighbours, to encourage them to police their users in turn.
   But most importantly, it requires the sender to declare path
   congestion to the network and it can remove traffic at the egress if
   this declaration is dishonest.  So it can police correctly,
   irrespective of whether the receiver tries to suppress congestion
   feedback or whether the sender ignores genuine congestion feedback.

   Here we only discuss TCP/IP, not other IP transports.  No changes to

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   the IP or TCP wire protocols are REQUIRED, beyond those specified
   already for ECN [RFC3168].  No changes to the handling of IP in
   senders, receivers or routers are REQUIRED and the TCP receiver does
   not need changing either, only the TCP sender.  However, later, we
   define RECOMMENDED changes to both the IP and TCP wire-protocols and
   to the TCP receiver (Section 8 gives the incremental deployment

   The re-ECN protocol makes no changes and has no effect on the TCP
   congestion control algorithm.  Re-ECN is only concerned with setting
   the proportions of ECT(0) and ECT(1), which is completely orthogonal
   to congestion control.

3.1.  Imprecise Protocol Overview

   We will first give an imprecise but intuitive overview of the re-ECN
   protocol, before being more exact.  The general idea is to encode
   remaining downstream path congestion into the three ECN codepoints.
   Currently the ECN field only encodes the path congestion that has
   already been experienced upstream.

   Although we do not change the behaviour of ECN-capable routers, we
   need to highlight the way they accumulate ECN marking along a path.
   ECN-capable routers encode a time-varying congestion signal into a
   stream of packets by varying the rate at which they set the CE
   codepoint.  Each ECN-capable router marks some packets with CE, the
   marking probability increasing with the length of the queue at its
   egress link (the RED algorithm [RFC2309]).  The combined effect of
   the packet marking of all the routers along the path signals
   congestion of the whole path to the receiver.  So, for example, if
   one router early in a path is marking 1% of packets and another later
   in a path is marking 2%, flows that pass through both routers will
   experience approximately 3% marking.

   With current ECN, the TCP receiver echoes CE marked packets back to
   the sender.  The idea of re-ECN is for the sender at the head of the
   path to re-echo each echoed CE packet back into the forward data path
   using the ECT(0) field.  In the above example it would set the ECT(0)
   codepoint on approximately 3% of the packets it sends.  It sets the
   remaining 97% to the other ECT codepoint, ECT(1).  Then downstream
   congestion can be measured to be the rate of ECT(0) marking minus the
   rate of CE marking (note, we are still being imprecise).  Remaining
   downstream congestion can be measured at any point along the path,
   not just at the sender.

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

       |            ECT(0) marking rate
    3% |--------------------------------+=====
       |                                |
    2% |                                |
       |            CE marking rate     |
    1% |        +-----------------------+
       |        |
    0% +---------------------------------------->
          ^     0     ^                 1    ^    resource index
          |     ^     |                 ^    |
          0     |     1                 |    2     observation points
              1.00%                  2.00%         marking rate

   Figure 1: A 2-Router Example (Imprecise)

   Figure 1 shows an example to illustrate this.  The horizontal axis
   represents the index of each congestible resource (typically queues)
   along a path through the Internet.  The two superimposed plots show
   the rate of each ECN codepoint observed along this path.

               | Observation point | Downstream congestion |
               |         0         |      3% - 0% = 3%     |
               |         1         |      3% - 1% = 2%     |
               |         2         |      3% - 3% = 0%     |

   Effectively, using the ECT(0) codepoint, the re-ECN sender
   superimposes the whole-path congestion rate into the congestion
   marking signal, without disturbing the signal representing upstream
   congestion given by CE marking.  So all along the path, the whole-
   path congestion can be used as a reference against which to compare
   the upstream congestion.  The difference predicts downstream
   congestion for the rest of the path.  So downstream congestion,
   upstream congestion and whole path congestion are all encoded in 1.5
   bits (3 of the 4 ECN codepoints).

   Being able to encode downstream congestion directly in the packet
   stream is the key to adding accountability to IP, as outlined in the

3.2.  Precise Protocol Overview

   We will now repeat this description with more precision, because, of
   course, there is a delay between the two signals and binary marking

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   is probabilistic not additive.  We will end up able to precisely
   measure a moving average of downstream congestion at any point on a

   Attending so closely to precision issues might seem pedantic, but it
   avoids systematic bias in downstream congestion averages.  The idea
   is on average to hit a target of zero downstream congestion at the
   destination.  An average even slightly below zero then signifies
   someone is cheating.  If we recommend a sender design that introduces
   a systematic bias, the distinction between cheating and honesty will
   be blurred.

   First some notation. j represents the index of each resource
   (typically queues) along a path, ranging from 0 at the first router
   to n-1 at the last.  We use m_j to represent the rate at which a
   router marks packets using resource j. u_j is the rate of CE marking
   observable in packet headers arriving at resource j (before marking).
   Similarly, z_j is the rate of ECT(0) marking.  (To aid readability,
   think m for *m*arking rate, u for *u*pstream congestion, z for ECT

   All measurements are in terms of bytes, not packets, assuming that
   line resources are more congestible than packet processing.  Observed
   rates of each particular codepoint (u, z as well as h and v below)
   have dimensions of data rate [b/s].  Router marking rate m is a
   dimensionless fraction, being the ratio of two data rates (marked and

   We define what is effectively a virtual header field h, where h_j =
   u_j - z_j at any node j on the path.  As with current ECN, no packets
   are sent with CE set: u_0 = 0.  And TCP feeds back to the source any
   CE arriving at the destination in the echo congestion experienced
   (ECE) field (see Section 4.1 for how the accuracy of ECE feedback can
   be improved).

   The sender tries to arrange the starting value h_0 of this virtual
   header so that it will reach zero at the destination.  In other
   words, it tries to ensure the rates of ECT(0) and CE at the
   destination are equal: z_n = u_n.  Of course it cannot achieve this
   for certain, but it can on average over a long enough time (we have
   to assume congestion processes are stationary over the short times we
   will be averaging, which is a fairly safe assumption).

   Even though the sender will only hit the target on average, it is
   important to avoid any systematic bias.  So the sender MUST allow for
   some ECT(0) packets being changed to CE by downstream routers.  If
   the rate of ECT(0) set by the sender is z_0, and, by the end of the
   path, any packet (of whatever value of ECT) might be changed to CE

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   with a probability u_n, then the remaining rate of packets that have
   avoided having their ECT(0) marking removed is,

      z_n = z_0(1 - u_n).

   But we want z_n = u_n.

      So u_n = z_0(1 - u_n)

      or z_0 = u_n / (1 - u_n). .......(1)

   So, to avoid bias, rather than just re-echoing ECE, the sender should
   slightly inflate the rate it sends ECT(0) by 1/(1 - u_n) (Section 4.1
   gives a simple TCP ack handler algorithm to do this).

   To be absolutely clear, all the marking rates we discuss here result
   from the behaviour of simple protocol handler algorithms---we are not
   saying the protocol handlers have to work with these rates directly.

       | 3.07%      ECT(0) marking rate
    3% |             3.04%              +=====
       |                                |   2.98%
    2% |                                |
       |            CE marking rate     |
    1% |        +-----------------------+
       | 0.00%  |    1.00%
    0% +---------------------------------------->
          ^     0     ^                n-1   ^    resource index, j
          |     ^     |                 ^    |
         j=0    |     j                 |   j=n    observation points
           |  1.00%   |              2.00%   |     marking rate,      m
        0.00%       1.00%                  2.98%  upstr congestion,   u
        3.07%       3.04%                  2.98%  rate of ECT(0),     z

       -3.07%      -2.04%                  0.00%  virtual header,     h
        2.98%       2.00%                  0.00%  downstr congestion, v

   Figure 2: Measuring Upstream and Downstream Congestion (Precise)

   Figure 2 repeats our example from Figure 1, but with more precision.
   It shows how combining 1% and 2% marking leads to slightly less than
   3% whole-path marking:

           u_n = 1 - (1 - m_0)(1 - m_1)
               = 100% - 99.00% x 98.00%
               = 2.98%

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   The figure also shows the sender slightly inflating the rate it sets
   ECT(0) to 3.07% in order to hit the 2.98% target.

           z_0 = u_n / (1 - u_n) .......From Equation (1)
               = 2.98% / 97.02%
               = 3.07%

   We now introduce the notation v for the downstream congestion metric
   we need for accountability applications.  For low levels of
   congestion (|h_j| << 1), the virtual headers h arriving in packets at
   any node on the path are themselves a good approximation to
   downstream congestion, that is v ~ -h (we have deliberately used a
   definition of h that usually makes it numerically negative).  In
   other words, downstream congestion can be approximated simply by
   subtracting the rate of CE from that of ECT(0).

   But, because the rate of ECT(0) had to be inflated by the sender, it
   needs deflating again if a precise measure of downstream congestion
   is required.  The following formula does the necessary deflation
   (derived in Appendix A.1 of [Re-fb]):

      v_j = 1 - 1 / (1 - h_j). .......(2)

   The last two rows in Figure 2 show the virtual header and this
   precise downstream congestion metric for our example scenario.  Note
   that Equation (2) deliberately implies that the sender cannot declare
   downstream congestion of more than 50%, as it MUST not set the
   virtual header outside the bounds -1 <= h_j <= 0.  We discuss this
   saturation in Section 7.1.5.

4.  Transport Layers

4.1.  TCP

   The ECN field in the IPv4 and IPv6 wire protocols and the names of
   the codepoints within it remain unchanged from their definition in

   Re-ECN capability at the sender is essential.  At the receiver it is
   optional, as long as the receiver has a basic ('vanilla flavour')
   ECN-capable transport (ECT) to [RFC3168].  Given the number of
   combinations of sender and receiver capability has grown to 16, we
   give a table below summarising what happens with each combination.
   The sender of the TCP half-connection is host S and the receiver is
   R. There is a column for each flavour of host capability.  The last
   column gives the mode the half-connection is in after the TCP
   handshake (we have made up the names for the nonce-related modes ---

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   the ECN nonce RFC [RFC3540] doesn't specify behaviour in all cases).
   Only the first three rows concern us here, as all the rest are
   already outlined in the specifications of earlier flavours of ECN.

          | Re-ECT | ECT-Nonce | ECT | Not-ECT |      Mode     |
          |   SR   |           |     |         |     Re-ECT    |
          |    S   |     R     |     |         | Re-ECT-Compat |
          |    S   |           |  R  |         | Re-ECT-Compat |
          |    S   |           |     |    R    |    Not-ECT    |
          |        |     SR    |     |         |   ECT-Nonce   |
          |        |     S     |  R  |         |   Half-Nonce  |
          |        |     S     |     |    R    |    Not-ECT    |
          |        |           |  SR |         |      ECT      |
          |        |           |  S  |    R    |    Not-ECT    |
          |        |           |     |    SR   |    Not-ECT    |
          |    R   |     S     |     |         |   ECT-Nonce   |
          |    R   |           |  S  |         |   ECT-Nonce?  |
          |    R   |           |     |    S    |    Not-ECT    |
          |        |     R     |  S  |         |   ECT-Nonce?  |
          |        |     R     |     |    S    |    Not-ECT    |
          |        |           |  R  |    S    |    Not-ECT    |

   o  Re-ECT: Full re-ECN capabable transport

   o  Re-ECT-Compat: Re-ECN sender in compatibility mode with a vanilla
      [RFC3168] ECN receiver or an [RFC3540] ECN nonce-capable receiver.

   We will describe what happens in these two modes, then describe how
   they are negotiated.

4.1.1.  Re-ECT mode: Full re-ECN capabable transport

   In full Re-ECT mode, for each half connection, both sender and
   receiver maintain an unsigned integer counter we will call ECI (echo
   congestion increment).  It maintains a count, modulo 8, of how many
   times a CE marked packet has arrived at the receiver during the half-
   connection.  Conceptually the three TCP option fields used for ECN-
   related functions in previous versions of ECN are used as a 3-bit
   field for the receiver to repeatedly tell the sender the current
   value of ECI.  This conceptual field is shown in Figure 4, against
   how the TCP header is actually defined at the moment, including the
   addition of support for the ECN nonce in Figure 3.

   Every time a CE marked packet arrives at the receiver, the receiver
   transport increments its local value of ECI modulo 8 and immediately

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   echoes its value to the sender in this conceptual ECI field in the
   TCP header.  It repeats the same value of ECI in every subsequent ACK
   until the next CE event, when it increments ECI again.

   The increment of the local ECI values is modulo 8 so the field value
   simply wraps round back to zero when it overflows.  The least
   significant bit is to the right (labelled bit 9). {ToDo:
   Unfortunately the 3-bit field crosses a byte boundary - how important
   is this?}

        0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15
      |               |           | N | C | E | U | A | P | R | S | F |
      | Header Length | Reserved  | S | W | C | R | C | S | S | Y | I |
      |               |           |   | R | E | G | K | H | T | N | N |

   Figure 3: The (post-ECN Nonce) definition of bytes 13 and 14 of the
   TCP Header

        0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15
      |               |           |           | U | A | P | R | S | F |
      | Header Length | Reserved  |    ECI    | R | C | S | S | Y | I |
      |               |           |           | G | K | H | T | N | N |

   Figure 4: Our alternative conceptual view of bytes 13 and 14 of the
   TCP Header

   On the arrival of every ACK, the sender compares the ECI field with
   its own copy, then replaces its local copy with that from the ACK.
   The difference is assumed to be the number of CE marked packets that
   have arrived at the receiver since the last ACK (but see below for
   its safety strategy).  Each increment of the ECI field (or detection
   of a drop), the sender MUST set the ECT(0) field in the IP header of
   the next packet it sends, effectively re-echoing each increment to
   ECI.  Otherwise the data sender sends all packets with ECT(1) set.

   As we have already emphasised in the protocol overview, the re-ECN
   protocol makes no changes and has no effect on the TCP congestion
   control algorithm.  So, each increment of ECI (or detection of a
   drop) also triggers the standard TCP congestion response, but with no
   more than one congestion response per round trip, as usual.

   We chose this method for echoing congestion marking because a re-ECN
   sender needs to know about every CE mark arriving at the receiver,

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   not just whether at least one arrives within a round trip time.  But
   pure ACKs are not protected by TCP reliable delivery, so we repeat
   the same ECI value in every ACK until it changes.  Even if many ACKs
   in a row are lost, as soon as one gets through, the ECI field it
   repeats from previous ACKs that didn't get through will update the
   sender on how many CE marks arrived since the last ACK got through.

   The sender will only lose a record of the arrival of a CE mark if
   /all/ the ACKS are lost (and all of them were pure ACKs) for a stream
   of data long enough to contain 8 or more CE marks.  To protect
   against this extremely unlikely event, if the sender receives a ACK
   that acknowledges a sequence number 8 or more segments higher than
   the previously ack'd sequence number it should conservatively behave
   as if all the intervening ACKs echoed a new CE mark. {ToDo: This
   behaviour is ultra-ultra-conservative, so we need to check whether
   this ultra-safely is really necessary.}

   In order to slightly inflate the rate of ECT(0) marking, as described
   in the precise protocol overview above (Section 3.2), for each half-
   connection the TCP sender maintains a single EWMA, U, of the number
   of ACKed packets between successive increments of ECI (assuming
   equal-sized packets).  It sets an extra ECT(0) in sent data every
   (U-1) increments of the ECI field.  Maintaining this EWMA can be done
   with a shift and an add per packet, by choosing a power of two for
   the weight.

4.1.2.  Re-ECT-Compat mode: Re-ECT Sender with a Vanilla or Nonce ECT

   If the half-connection is in Re-ECT-Compat mode, the receiver will
   not understand re-ECN but the sender can infer enough from the
   vanilla ECN feedback to set the ECT(0) marking rate reasonably well.
   Essentially, every time the receiver toggles the ECE field from 0 to
   1, the Re-ECN sender does the same as it would do in full Re-ECT
   mode.  That is, it sets ECT(0) on the next packet and maintains the
   two counters that enable it to inflate the rate of ECT(0).

   If a CE marked packet arrives at the receiver within a round trip
   time of a previous mark, the receiver will still be echoing ECE for
   the last CE mark.  Therefore, such a mark will be missed by the
   sender.  Of course, this isn't of concern for congestion control, but
   it does mean that the rate of ECT(0) will be occasionally
   understated.  If there is a dropper at the egress, flows in Re-ECT-
   Compat mode may be mistaken for very lightly cheating flows and
   suffer a small number of packet drops.  We expect Re-ECN would be
   deployed for some time before policers and droppers start to enforce
   it.  So, given there is not much ECN deployment yet anyway, this
   minor problem may affect only a very small proportion of flows,

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   reducing to nothing over the years as vanilla ECN sites upgrade.
   {ToDo: This decision will need to be reviewed in the light of
   experience at the time of re-ECN deployment.}

   Re-ECT-Compat mode is OPTIONAL.  Re-ECN implementers who want to keep
   their code simple, MAY choose not to implement this mode.  If they do
   not, a re-ECN sender SHOULD fall back to vanilla ECT mode in the
   presence of an ECN-capable receiver.  It MAY choose to fall back to
   the ECT-Nonce mode, but if implementers don't want to be bothered
   with this mode, they probably won't want to bother with the nonce

4.1.3.  Capability Negotiation

   During the TCP hand-shake at the start of a connection, the
   originator of the connection (host A) indicates that it has a re-ECN-
   capable transport (Re-ECT) by setting the TCP options NS=1, CWR=1 and
   ECE=1 in the initial SYN.

   A responding Re-ECT host (host B) should return a SYN ACK with flags
   NS=0, CWR=1 and ECE=0.  We would also like to reserve the combination
   NS=1, CWR=1 and ECE=0 for future Re-ECN use {ToDo: describe this
   future use}.

   These handshakes are summarised in the table below.  The handshakes
   used for the other flavours of ECN are also shown for comparison.

        |  Phase  | NS | CWR | ECE |          Condition          |
        |   SYN   |  1 |  1  |  1  |         A is Re-ECT         |
        | SYN ACK |  0 |  1  |  0  |         B is Re-ECT         |
        | SYN ACK |  1 |  1  |  0  | Reserved: future Re-ECT use |
        | SYN ACK |  0 |  0  |  1  |           B is ECT          |
        | SYN ACK |  1 |  0  |  1  |        B is ECT-Nonce       |

   The rationale for choosing these particular combinations of flags is
   as follows.

   Choice of SYN flags: The Re-ECN sender can work with vanilla ECN
      receivers so we wanted to use the same flags as would be used in
      an ECN-setup SYN [RFC3168].  But at the same time, we wanted a
      receiver that is Re-ECT to be able to recognise that the sender is
      also Re-ECT.  We believe setting NS=1 achieves both these
      objectives, as it should be ignored by vanilla ECT receivers and
      by ECT-Nonce receivers, but senders that are not Re-ECT should not
      set NS=1. {ToDo: At the time ECN was defined, the NS flag was not

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

      defined, so setting NS=1 should be ignored by existing ECT
      receivers (but you never know).}

   Choice of SYN ACK flags: Choice of SYN ACK: The sender needs to be
      able to determine whether the receiver is Re-ECT.  The original
      ECN specification required an ECT receiver to respond to an ECN-
      setup SYN with an ECN-setup SYN ACK of CWR=0 and ECE=1.  There is
      no room to modify this by setting the NS flag, as that is already
      set in the SYN ACK of an ECT-Nonce receiver.  So we used the only
      combination of CWR and ECE that would not be used by existing TCP
      receivers: CWR=1 and ECE=0.  The original ECN specification
      defines this combination as a non-ECN-setup SYN ACK, which remains
      true for vanilla and Nonce ECTs.  But for re-ECN we define it as a
      Re-ECN-setup SYN ACK.  We didn't use a SYN ACK with both CWR and
      ECE cleared to 0 because that would be the likely response from
      most Not-ECT receivers.  And we didn't use a SYN ACK with both CWR
      and ECE set to 1 either, as at least one broken receiver
      implementation echos whatever flags were in the SYN into its SYN

   Choice of Reserved SYN ACK: {ToDo:}

4.1.4.  Flow Start

   Note that at the network layer a TCP SYN should have the ECN field
   cleared (Not-ECT).

   Contrary to the original ECN specification [RFC3168] a SYN ACK SHOULD
   have ECT set at the network layer, as currently being proposed
   [I-D.kuzmanovic-ecn-syn].  Specifically, a Re-ECT receiver SHOULD set
   the ECN field of the SYN ACK to ECT(0).  Once the TCP flow starts,
   the TCP sender SHOULD set ECT(0) on the first packet it sends (after
   the SYN).  The TCP sender for each half-connection MUST then follow
   the above procedure for determining whether to set ECT(1) or ECT(0)
   at the network layer for each subsequent packet.

   The first SYN and the first ECT packet in each half connection SHOULD
   have the CR flag cleared to 0 at the network layer (see Section 5).
   Subsequent packets MUST have the CR flag set to 1.

   The above behaviour for the very first ECT packet of a flow is
   necessary because the transport does not have the benefit of ECN
   feedback.  So ECT(0) is set rather than ECT(1) as a conservative
   estimate that there might be congestion.  And the CR flag is cleared
   to indicate that the ECT field has been set without certain knowledge
   of the path.

   It might seem pedantic worrying about these single packets, but this

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   behaviour ensures the system is safe, even if the application mix on
   the Internet evolves to the point where the majority of flows consist
   of a single packet.  It also allows denial of service attacks to be
   more easily isolated and prevented.

   Note that we have said SHOULD rather than MUST for this behaviour
   with initial ECT packets.  This is to entertain the possibility of
   the TCP transport having the benefit of other knowledge of the path,
   which it re-uses from one flow to the benefit of a newly starting
   flow.  For instance, multiple flows between the same hosts using a
   Congestion Manager [RFC3124].  Or a proxy host that is aggregating
   congestion information for large numbers of flows (indeed, if
   Internet traffic evolves to be dominated by single-packet flows we
   will need plenty of these).

4.2.  Other Transports

4.2.1.  Guidelines for Adding Re-feedback to Other Transports

   Re-ECT sender transports that have established the receiver transport
   is at least ECN-capable (not necessarily Re-ECN capable) MUST set the
   ECT(0) codepoint at least as often as the CE codepoint arrives at the
   receiver.  As with the current ECN protocol, whenever ECT(0) is not
   set, the ECT(1) codepoint should be set.

   If the sender transport does not have sufficient feedback to even
   estimate the path's CE rate, it SHOULD set ECT(0) continuously.  If
   the sender transport has some, perhaps stale, feedback to estimate
   the path's CE rate, the transport SHOULD set ECT(0) and ECT(1) in
   equal proportions.  Alternating them, starting with ECT(0) would be
   sufficient.  From Equation (2) above, the sender will then be
   declaring to the network ingress that it believes downstream
   congestion, v_0 = 50% or 33% respectively.  Note: these estimates are
   NOT used for congestion control in the Re-ECN protocol.  If this is
   an under-declaration of the actual (but unknown) path congestion, it
   will simply result in a strongly positive virtual header, h, at the

   A Re-ECT sender transport that cannot estimate the CE rate at the
   receiver MUST also set the Certain flag (CR) (see Section 5).

   {ToDo: Give a brief outline of what would be expected for each of the

   o  UDP Fire and Forget (e.g.  DNS)

   o  UDP Streaming with no F/b

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   o  UDP Streaming with F/b

   o  DCCP

   o  RSVP and/or NSIS: A separate I-D is in preparation describing how
      re-ECN can be used in an edge-to-edge rather than end-to-end
      scenario.  It can then be used by downstream networks to police
      whether upstream networks are blocking new flows when downstream
      congestion is too high, even though the congestion is in other
      operators' downstream networks.  This relates to current work in
      progress on Admission Control over Diffserv using Pre-Congestion
      Notification, being reported to the IETF TSVWG [CL-arch].


5.  Network Layer

   The ECN field in the IP header remains unchanged.  However, the
   semantics of the two ECT codepoints change.  Previously routers and
   middleboxes treated these two codepoints identically, not taking any
   note of which codepoint was set.  With the re-ECN protocol, routers
   and middleboxes may infer downstream or full-path congestion by
   monitoring the relative rates of the ECN codepoints.  Routers and
   middleboxes that monitor this information SHOULD ignore packets with
   the CR flag (defined below) cleared.  The CR flag MUST NOT be used to
   determine the treatment of a single packet.  It is only meaningful to
   support the monitoring of averages over multiple packets.

   For IPv4, this document defines a new CR (Certain) control flag in
   place of the reserved control flag at bit 48 of the IPv4 header
   (counting from 0).  Alternatively, some would call this bit 0
   (counting from 0) of byte 7 (counting from 1) of the IPv4 header.

             0   1   2
           | C | D | M |
           | R | F | F |

   Figure 5: New Definition of the Control Flags at the start of Byte 7
   of the IPv4 Header

   {ToDo: Include the IPv6 extension header design, including support
   for the CR flag.  Also its integrated support for a future multi-bit
   congestion notification field, with a TTL hop count scheme to check
   that all routers on the path support it (similar to Quick-Start).
   So, if the whole path of routers doesn't support the extension, the

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   end-points can fall back to re-ECN (or drop).}

   Guidelines on setting the CR flag are given in Section 4.2.1.  When
   set, the CR flag also serves as an indication that the transports are
   re-ECN capable (Re-ECT).  More generally, it will imply that the
   transport understands and is using re-feedback of other fields in the
   IP header, such as the TTL (see [Re-fb]), although this document does
   not define re-feedback behaviour for the TTL field.

   {ToDo: Describe how the sender falls back to clearing this flag if
   packets don't appear to be getting through (to work round a firewall
   discarding a packet it considers unusual).}

   {ToDo: We are sure there will probably be other claims pending on the
   use of this flag (we know of at least one {ToDo add ref to Adams}).
   There is a possibility that this flag as defined can simultaneously
   serve other purposes, particularly where the start of a flow needs
   distinguishing from packets later in the flow.  For instance it could
   have been useful in tag switching?  It is (nearly) Clark's state
   set-up bit to protect against memory exhaustion attacks?.}

6.  Non-Issues

   {ToDo: This section will explain why the addition of Re-ECN does not
   interact with any of the following:

   o  Integration with congestion notification in various link layers
      (Ethernet, ATM (and MPLS if it had a congestion notification
      capability added, which is not precluded for the EXP field

   o  Tunnels, and Overlays that wish to support congestion notification
      (see also the brief discussion of edge-to-edge support for Re-ECN
      in RSVP or NSIS transports earlier)

   o  Encryption and IPSec


7.  Applications

7.1.  Policing Per-Flow Congestion Response

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

7.1.1.  Incentive Framework

   {ToDo: This section will largely repeat the discussion in Sections 3
   "Incentives" and 3.1 "The Case Against Classic Feedback" of [Re-fb],
   but putting it into a standardisation context.}

7.1.2.  Dropper

   {ToDo: This section will largely repeat the discussion in Section 3.2
   "Honest Congestion Reporting" of [Re-fb], as an example
   implementation of a 'dropper' (but for 2-bit Re-ECN) that could be
   deployed at the egresses from the internetwork to detect cheating
   packets and flows.}

7.1.3.  Per-flow Policer

   {ToDo: This section will largely repeat the discussion in Section 3.3
   "Fair Congestion Response" of [Re-fb], as an example implementation
   of a 'policer' (but for 2-bit Re-ECN) that could be deployed at the
   ingresses into the internetwork to detect flows not complying to the
   agreed rate response to congestion.}

7.1.4.  Inter-domain Policing

   {ToDo: This section will largely repeat the discussion in Section 3.4
   "Interdomain incentive mechanisms" of [Re-fb], to give examples of
   how downstream networks can police the aggregate congestion response
   of their upstream neighbours, against different contractual
   arrangements.  The goal being to ensure the upstream network in turn
   polices its upstream networks, eventually ensuring upstream networks
   will suffer financially if they do not police the rate response to
   congestion of their users.}

7.1.5.  Limitations

   {ToDo: This is the most critical section, for the IETF audience, but
   unfortunately we have not had time to write it.  This section will
   discuss the limitations of the re-feedback approach, particularly
   having fit it into the one remaining spare codepoint and bit of the
   IP header:

   o  The ability of malicious users to turn off ECT, given Not-ECT
      traffic cannot be policed, and the implications on how we may have
      to treat Not-ECT traffic in the longer term.

   o  Re-feedback for TTL would also be desirable at the same time

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   o  The ability of malicious users to launch dynamically changing
      attacks, exploiting the time it takes to detect an attack, given
      ECN marking is binary.

   o  Tructation vs. Drop: The issue over whether it would be useful to
      truncate rather than drop packets that appear to be malicious, so
      that the feedback loop can continue even though useful data can be

   o  The apparently inherent need for at least some flow state at the
      egress dropper given the binary marking environment, and the
      consequent vulnerability to state exhaustion attacks.

   o  Issues around saturation of the number range the Re-ECN protocol
      uses to signal marking rates (These issues are believed to be
      safe, but they need airing anyway).


7.1.6.  Other Applications

   {ToDo: Other applications of Re-ECN will be briefly outlined here
   (largely drawing from section 3 of [Re-fb]), such as:

   o  Per-user (rather than per-flow) long term congestion policing

   o  DDoS Mitigation

   o  E2e QoS

   o  Traffic Engineering

   o  Inter-Provider Service Monitoring


8.  Incremental Deployment

   {ToDo: This section will bring together the features related to
   incremental deployment in the protocol specification as defined, to
   describe the overall deployment strategy.  Particularly, the final
   step described in the next paragraph is neat:}

   We chose the rate of ECT(0) for z, rather than ECT(1) deliberately.
   Existing ECN sources set ECT(0) at either 50% (the nonce) or 100%
   (the default).  So they will appear to a re-feedback policer as very
   highly congested paths.  When policers are first deployed they can be

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

   configured permissively, allowing through both `legacy' ECN and
   misbehaving re-ECN flows.  Then, as the threshold is set more
   strictly, the more legacy ECN sources will gain by upgrading to re-
   ECN.  Thus, towards the end of the voluntary incremental deployment
   period, legacy transports can be given progressively stronger
   encouragement to upgrade.

9.  Architectural Rationale {ToDo:}

10.  Simulations

   This section will refer to the simulations or policer and dropper
   performance done since those in section 5 "Dropper Performance" of
   [Re-fb].  Some are in submission to a conference.

11.  Related Work

   This section will largely be similar to the section 6 "Related Work"
   of [Re-fb], but in a more standards-related context.

12.  IANA Considerations

   {ToDo:}This memo includes no request to IANA (yet).

13.  Security Considerations


14.  Conclusions


15.  Acknowledgements


16.  References

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

16.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2309]  Braden, B., Clark, D., Crowcroft, J., Davie, B., Deering,
              S., Estrin, D., Floyd, S., Jacobson, V., Minshall, G.,
              Partridge, C., Peterson, L., Ramakrishnan, K., Shenker,
              S., Wroclawski, J., and L. Zhang, "Recommendations on
              Queue Management and Congestion Avoidance in the
              Internet", RFC 2309, April 1998.

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

   [RFC3540]  Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit
              Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces",
              RFC 3540, June 2003.

16.2.  Informative References

   [CL-arch]  Briscoe and others, B., "A framework for admission control
              over Diffserv using Pre-congestion notification",
              I-D draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture-01.txt, July 2005.

              (work in progress)

              Kuzmanovic, A., "Adding Explicit Congestion Notification
              (ECN) Capability to TCP's SYN/ACK  Packets",
              draft-kuzmanovic-ecn-syn-00 (work in progress),
              October 2005.

   [RFC3124]  Balakrishnan, H. and S. Seshan, "The Congestion Manager",
              RFC 3124, June 2001.

   [RFC3270]  Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
              P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
              Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.

   [RFC3714]  Floyd, S. and J. Kempf, "IAB Concerns Regarding Congestion
              Control for Voice Traffic in the Internet", RFC 3714,
              March 2004.

   [Re-fb]    Briscoe, B., Jacquet, A., Di Cairano-Gilfedder, C.,
              Salvatori, A., Soppera, A., and M. Koyabe, "Policing

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

              Congestion Response in an Internetwork Using Re-Feedback",
              ACM SIGCOMM CCR 35(4)277--288, August 2005, <http://

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

Authors' Addresses

   Bob Briscoe
   BT & UCL
   B54/77, Adastral Park
   Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich  IP5 3RE

   Phone: +44 1473 645196
   Email: bob.briscoe@bt.com
   URI:   http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/B.Briscoe/

   Arnaud Jacquet
   B54/70, Adastral Park
   Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich  IP5 3RE

   Phone: +44 1473 647284
   Email: arnaud.jacquet@bt.com

   Alessandro Salvatori
   B54/77, Adastral Park
   Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich  IP5 3RE

   Phone: ?
   Email: sandr8@gmail.com
   URI:   ?

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP    October 2005

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   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

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  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.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Briscoe, et al.          Expires April 20, 2006                [Page 27]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/