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

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

Transport Area Working Group                                  B. Briscoe
Internet-Draft                                                  BT & UCL
Intended status: Standards Track                              A. Jacquet
Expires: January 10, 2008                                   A. Salvatori
                                                               M. Koyabe
                                                            T. Moncaster
                                                                      BT
                                                           July 09, 2007


     Re-ECN: Adding Accountability for Causing Congestion to TCP/IP
                   draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp-04

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

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

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document introduces a new protocol for explicit congestion
   notification (ECN), termed re-ECN, which can be deployed
   incrementally around unmodified routers.  The protocol arranges an
   extended ECN field in each packet so that, as it crosses any



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   interface in an internetwork, it will carry a truthful prediction of
   congestion on the remainder of its path.  Then the upstream party at
   any trust boundary in the internetwork can be held responsible for
   the congestion they cause, or allow to be caused.  So, networks can
   introduce straightforward accountability and policing mechanisms for
   incoming traffic from end-customers or from neighbouring network
   domains.  The purpose of this document is to specify the re-ECN
   protocol at the IP layer and to give guidelines on any consequent
   changes required to transport protocols.  It includes the changes
   required to TCP both as an example and as a specification.  It also
   gives examples of mechanisms that can use the protocol to ensure data
   sources respond correctly to congestion.  And it describes example
   mechanisms that ensure the dominant selfish strategy of both network
   domains and end-points will be to set the extended ECN field
   honestly.

Authors' Statement: Status (to be removed by the RFC Editor)

   Although the re-ECN protocol is intended to make a simple but far-
   reaching change to the Internet architecture, the most immediate
   priority for the authors is to delay any move of the ECN nonce to
   Proposed Standard status.  The argument for this position is
   developed in Appendix I.

Changes from previous drafts (to be removed by the RFC Editor)

   Full diffs created using the rfcdiff tool are available at
   <http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/B.Briscoe/pubs.html#retcp>

   From -03 to -04 (current version):

      Clarified reasons for holding back ECN nonce (Section 3.2 &
      Appendix I).

      Clarified Figure 1.

      Added Section 4.1.1.1 on equivalence of drops and ECN marks.

      Improved precision of Section 5.6 on IP in IP tunnels.

      Explained the RTT fairness is possible to enforce, but unlikely to
      be required (Section 6.1.3 & Appendix F).

      Explained that bulk per-user policing should be adequate but per-
      flow policing is also possible if desired, though it is not likely
      to be necessary (Section 6.1.5 & Appendix G).





Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      Reinforced need for passive policing at inter-domain borders to
      enable all-optical networking (Section 6.1.6).

      Minor editorial changes throughout.

   From -02 to -03:

      Started guidelines for re-ECN support in DCCP and SCTP.

      Added annex on limitations of nonce mechanism.

      Minor editorial changes throughout.

   From -01 to -02:

      Explanation on informal terminology in Section 3.4 clarified.

      IPv6 wire protocol encoding added (Section 5.2).

      Text on (non-)issues with tunnels, encryption and link layer
      congestion notification added (Section 5.6 & Section 5.7).

      Section added giving evolvability arguments against encouraging
      bottleneck policing (Section 6.1.2).  And text on re-ECN's
      evolvability by design added to Section 6.1.3

      Text on inter-domain policing (Section 6.1.6) and inter-domain
      fail-safes (Section 6.1.7) added.

   From -00 to -01:

      Encoding of re-ECN wire protocol changed for reasons given in
      Appendix B and consequently draft substantially re-written.

      Substantial text added in sections on applications, incremental
      deployment, architectural rationale and security considerations.















Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.  Protocol Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  Background and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Re-ECN Abstracted Network Layer Wire Protocol (IPv4 or
           v6)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Re-ECN Protocol Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.4.  Informal Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  Transport Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.1.  TCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.1.1.  RECN mode: Full re-ECN capable transport . . . . . . . 16
       4.1.2.  RECN-Co mode: Re-ECT Sender with a Vanilla or
               Nonce ECT Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       4.1.3.  Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       4.1.4.  Extended ECN (EECN) Field Settings during Flow
               Start or after Idle Periods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       4.1.5.  Pure ACKS, Retransmissions, Window Probes and
               Partial ACKs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     4.2.  Other Transports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       4.2.1.  General Guidelines for Adding Re-ECN to Other
               Transports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       4.2.2.  Guidelines for adding Re-ECN to RSVP or NSIS . . . . . 28
       4.2.3.  Guidelines for adding Re-ECN to DCCP . . . . . . . . . 28
       4.2.4.  Guidelines for adding Re-ECN to SCTP . . . . . . . . . 28
   5.  Network Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     5.1.  Re-ECN IPv4 Wire Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     5.2.  Re-ECN IPv6 Wire Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     5.3.  Router Forwarding Behaviour  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     5.4.  Justification for Setting the First SYN to FNE . . . . . . 32
     5.5.  Control and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       5.5.1.  Negative Balance Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       5.5.2.  Rate Response Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     5.6.  IP in IP Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     5.7.  Non-Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   6.  Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     6.1.  Policing Congestion Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
       6.1.1.  The Policing Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
       6.1.2.  The Case Against Bottleneck Policing . . . . . . . . . 37
       6.1.3.  Re-ECN Incentive Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       6.1.4.  Egress Dropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
       6.1.5.  Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
       6.1.6.  Inter-domain Policing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
       6.1.7.  Inter-domain Fail-safes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
       6.1.8.  Simulations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
     6.2.  Other Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
       6.2.1.  DDoS Mitigation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


       6.2.2.  End-to-end QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
       6.2.3.  Traffic Engineering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
       6.2.4.  Inter-Provider Service Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . 54
     6.3.  Limitations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
   7.  Incremental Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
     7.1.  Incremental Deployment Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
     7.2.  Incremental Deployment Incentives  . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
   8.  Architectural Rationale  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
   9.  Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
     9.1.  Policing Rate Response to Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . 64
     9.2.  Congestion Notification Integrity  . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
     9.3.  Identifying Upstream and Downstream Congestion . . . . . . 66
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
   12. Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
   13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
   14. Comments Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
     15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
     15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
   Appendix A.  Precise Re-ECN Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . 73
   Appendix B.  Justification for Two Codepoints Signifying Zero
                Worth Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
   Appendix C.  ECN Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
   Appendix D.  Packet Marking During Flow Start  . . . . . . . . . . 77
   Appendix E.  Example Egress Dropper Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . 77
   Appendix F.  Re-TTL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
   Appendix G.  Policer Designs to ensure Congestion
                Responsiveness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
     G.1.  Per-user Policing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
     G.2.  Per-flow Rate Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
   Appendix H.  Downstream Congestion Metering Algorithms . . . . . . 82
     H.1.  Bulk Downstream Congestion Metering Algorithm  . . . . . . 82
     H.2.  Inflation Factor for Persistently Negative Flows . . . . . 83
   Appendix I.  Argument for holding back the ECN nonce . . . . . . . 84
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 88














Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


1.  Introduction

   This document aims:

   o  To provide a complete specification of the addition of the re-ECN
      protocol to IP and guidelines on how to add it to transport layer
      protocols, including a complete specification of re-ECN in TCP as
      an example;

   o  To show how a number of hard problems become much easier to solve
      once re-ECN is available in IP.

   A general statement of the problem solved by re-ECN is to provide
   sufficient information in each IP datagram to be able to hold senders
   and whole networks accountable for the congestion they cause
   downstream, before they cause it.  But the every-day problems that
   re-ECN can solve are much more recognisable than this rather generic
   statement: mitigating distributed denial of service (DDoS);
   simplifying differentiation of quality of service (QoS); policing
   compliance to congestion control; and so on.

   Uniquely, re-ECN manages to enable solutions to these problems
   without unduly stifling innovative new ways to use the Internet.
   This was a hard balance to strike, given it could be argued that DDoS
   is an innovative way to use the Internet.  The most valuable insight
   was to allow each network to choose the level of constraint it wishes
   to impose.  Also re-ECN has been carefully designed so that networks
   that choose to use it conservatively can protect themselves against
   the congestion caused in their network by users on other networks
   with more liberal policies.

   For instance, some network owners want to block applications like
   voice and video unless their network is compensated for the extra
   share of bottleneck bandwidth taken.  These real-time applications
   tend to be unresponsive when congestion arises.  Whereas elastic TCP-
   based applications back away quickly, ending up taking a much smaller
   share of congested capacity for themselves.  Other network owners
   want to invest in large amounts of capacity and make their gains from
   simplicity of operation and economies of scale.

   Re-ECN allows the more conservative networks to police out flows that
   have not asked to be unresponsive to congestion---not because they
   are voice or video---just because they don't respond to congestion.
   But it also allows other networks to choose not to police.
   Crucially, when flows from liberal networks cross into a conservative
   network, re-ECN enables the conservative network to apply penalties
   to its neighbouring networks for the congestion they allow to be
   caused.  And these penalties can be applied to bulk data, without



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   regard to flows.

   Then, if unresponsive applications become so dominant that some of
   the more liberal networks experience congestion collapse [RFC3714],
   they can change their minds and use re-ECN to apply tighter controls
   in order to bring congestion back under control.

   Re-ECN works by arranging that each packet arrives at each network
   element carrying a view of expected congestion on its own downstream
   path, albeit averaged over multiple packets.  Most usefully,
   congestion on the remainder of the path becomes visible in the IP
   header at the first ingress.  Many of the applications of re-ECN
   involve a policer at this ingress using the view of downstream
   congestion arriving in packets to police or control the packet rate.

   Importantly, the scheme is recursive: a whole network harbouring
   users causing congestion in downstream networks can be held
   responsible or policed by its downstream neighbour.

   This document is structured as follows.  First an overview of the re-
   ECN protocol is given (Section 3), outlining its attributes and
   explaining conceptually how it works as a whole.  The two main parts
   of the document follow, as described above.  That is, the protocol
   specification divided into transport (Section 4) and network
   (Section 5) layers, then the applications it can be put to, such as
   policing DDoS, QoS and congestion control (Section 6).  Although
   these applications do not require standardisation themselves, they
   are described in a fair degree of detail in order to explain how re-
   ECN can be used.  Given re-ECN proposes to use the last undefined bit
   in the IPv4 header, we felt it necessary to outline the potential
   that re-ECN could release in return for being given that bit.

   Deployment issues discussed throughout the document are brought
   together in Section 7, which is followed by a brief section
   explaining the somewhat subtle rationale for the design from an
   architectural perspective (Section 8).  We end by describing related
   work (Section 9), listing security considerations (Section 10) and
   finally drawing conclusions (Section 12).


2.  Requirements notation

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

   This document first specifies a protocol, then describes a framework
   that creates the right incentives to ensure compliance to the



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   protocol.  This could cause confusion because the second part of the
   document considers many cases where malicious nodes may not comply
   with the protocol.  When such contingencies are described, if any of
   the above keywords are not capitalised, that is deliberate.  So, for
   instance, the following two apparently contradictory sentences would
   be perfectly consistent: i) x MUST do this; ii) x may not do this.


3.  Protocol Overview

3.1.  Background and Applicability

   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.).

   ECN-capable routers probabilistically set "11" if congestion is
   experienced (CE), the marking probability increasing with the length
   of the queue at its egress link (typically using the RED
   algorithm [RFC2309]).  However, they still drop rather than mark Not-
   ECT packets.  With multiple ECN-capable routers on a path, a flow of
   packets accumulates the fraction of CE marking that each router adds.
   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 (see Appendix A
   for a precise treatment).

   The choice of two ECT code-points in the ECN field [RFC3168]
   permitted future flexibility, optionally allowing the sender to
   encode the experimental ECN nonce [RFC3540] in the packet stream.
   The nonce is designed to allow a sender to check the integrity of
   congestion feedback.  But Section 9.2 explains that it still gives no
   control over how fast the sender transmits as a result of the
   feedback.  On the other hand, re-ECN is designed both to ensure that
   congestion is declared honestly and that the sender's rate responds
   appropriately.

   Re-ECN is based on a feedback arrangement called `re-
   feedback' [Re-fb].  The word is short for either receiver-aligned,
   re-inserted or re-echoed feedback.  But it actually works even when
   no feedback is available.  In fact it has been carefully designed to
   work for single datagram flows.  It also encourages aggregation of
   single packet flows by congestion control proxies.  Then, even if the



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   traffic mix of the Internet were to become dominated by short
   messages, it would still be possible to control congestion
   effectively and efficiently.

   Changing the Internet's feedback architecture seems to imply
   considerable upheaval.  But re-ECN can be deployed incrementally at
   the transport layer around unmodified routers using existing fields
   in IP (v4 or v6).  However it does also require the last undefined
   bit in the IPv4 header, which it uses in combination with the 2-bit
   ECN field to create four new codepoints.  Nonetheless, changes to IP
   routers are RECOMMENDED in order to improve resilience against DoS
   attacks.  Similarly, re-ECN works best if both the sender and
   receiver transports are re-ECN-capable, but it can work with just
   sender support.  Section 7.1 summarises the incremental deployment
   strategy.

   The re-ECN protocol makes no changes and has no effect on the TCP
   congestion control algorithm or on other rate responses to
   congestion.  Re-ECN is only concerned with enabling the ingress
   network to police that a source is complying with a congestion
   control algorithm, which is orthogonal to congestion control itself.

   Before re-ECN can be considered worthy of using up the last bit in
   the IP header, we must be sure that all our claims are robust.  We
   have gradually been reducing the list of outstanding issues, but the
   few that still remain are listed in Section 6.3.  We expect new
   attacks may still be found, but we offer the re-ECN protocol on the
   basis that it is built on fairly solid theoretical foundations and,
   so far, it has proved possible to keep it relatively robust.

3.2.  Re-ECN Abstracted Network Layer Wire Protocol (IPv4 or v6)

   The re-ECN wire protocol uses the two bit ECN field broadly as in
   RFC3168 [RFC3168] as described above, but with five differences of
   detail (brought together in a list in Section 7.1).  This
   specification defines a new re-ECN extension (RE) flag.  We will
   defer the definition of the actual position of the RE flag in the
   IPv4 & v6 headers until Section 5.  Until then it will suffice to use
   an abstraction of the IPv4 and v6 wire protocols by just calling it
   the RE flag.

   Unlike the ECN field, the RE flag is intended to be set by the sender
   and remain unchanged along the path, although it can be read by
   network elements that understand the re-ECN protocol.  It is feasible
   that a network element MAY change the setting of the RE flag, perhaps
   acting as a proxy for an end-point, but such a protocol would have to
   be defined in another specification (e.g. [Re-PCN]).




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   Although the RE flag is a separate, single bit field, it can be read
   as an extension to the two-bit ECN field; the three concatenated bits
   in what we will call the extended ECN field (EECN) making eight
   codepoints.  We will use the RFC3168 names of the ECN codepoints to
   describe settings of the ECN field when the RE flag setting is "don't
   care", but we also define the following six extended ECN codepoint
   names for when we need to be more specific.

   RFC3168 ECN defines uses for all four codepoints of the two-bit ECN
   field.  This memo widens the codepoint space to eight, and uses six
   codepoints.  One of re-ECN's codepoints is an alternative use of the
   codepoint set aside in RFC3168 for the ECN nonce (ECT(1)).
   Transports not using re-ECN can still use the ECN nonce, while those
   using re-ECN do not need to as long as the sender is also checking
   for transport protocol compliance [I-D.moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat].
   The case for doing this is given in Appendix I.  Two re-ECN
   codepoints are given compatible uses to those defined in RFC3168
   (Not-ECT and CE).  The other codepoint used by RFC3168 (ECT(0)) isn't
   used for re-ECN.  Altogether this leave one codepoint of the eight
   unused and available for future use.

   +-------+------------+------+--------------+------------------------+
   |  ECN  | RFC3168    |  RE  | Extended ECN |     Re-ECN meaning     |
   | field | codepoint  | flag | codepoint    |                        |
   +-------+------------+------+--------------+------------------------+
   |   00  | Not-ECT    |   0  | Not-RECT     |   Not re-ECN-capable   |
   |       |            |      |              |        transport       |
   |   00  | Not-ECT    |   1  | FNE          |      Feedback not      |
   |       |            |      |              |       established      |
   |   01  | ECT(1)     |   0  | Re-Echo      |  Re-echoed congestion  |
   |       |            |      |              |        and RECT        |
   |   01  | ECT(1)     |   1  | RECT         |     Re-ECN capable     |
   |       |            |      |              |        transport       |
   |   10  | ECT(0)     |   0  | ---          |   Legacy ECN use only  |
   |       |            |      |              |                        |
   |   10  | ECT(0)     |   1  | --CU--       |    Currently unused    |
   |       |            |      |              |                        |
   |   11  | CE         |   0  | CE(0)        |   Re-Echo canceled by  |
   |       |            |      |              | congestion experienced |
   |   11  | CE         |   1  | CE(-1)       | Congestion experienced |
   +-------+------------+------+--------------+------------------------+

                     Table 1: Extended ECN Codepoints








Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


3.3.  Re-ECN Protocol Operation

   In this section we will give an overview of the operation of the re-
   ECN protocol for TCP/IP, leaving a detailed specification to the
   following sections.  Other transports will be discussed later.

   In summary, the protocol adds a third `re-echo' stage to the existing
   TCP/IP ECN protocol.  Whenever the network adds CE congestion
   signalling to the IP header on the forward data path, the receiver
   feeds it back to the ingress using TCP, then the sender re-echoes it
   into the forward data path using the RE flag in the next packet.

   Prior to receiving any feedback a sender will not know which setting
   of the RE flag to use, so it sets the feedback not established (FNE)
   codepoint.  The network reads the FNE codepoint conservatively as
   equivalent to re-echoed congestion.

   Specifically, once a flow is established, a re-ECN sender always
   initialises the ECN field to ECT(1).  And it usually sets the RE flag
   to "1".  Whenever a router re-marks a packet to CE, the receiver
   feeds back this event to the sender.  On receiving this feedback, the
   re-ECN sender will clear the RE flag to "0" in the next packet it
   sends.

   We chose to set and clear the RE flag this way round to ease
   incremental deployment (see Section 7.1).  To avoid confusion we will
   use the term `blanking' (rather than marking) when the RE flag is
   cleared to "0".  So, over a stream of packets, we will talk of the
   `RE blanking fraction' as the fraction of octets in packets with the
   RE flag cleared to "0".





















Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


         _      _                      _      _
       /   \  /   \                  /   \  /   \
       | S |--| 0 | - - - - - - - -  | i |--| D |
       \ _ /  \ _ /                  \ _ /  \ _ /
         .      .                      .      .
       ^ .      .                      .      .
       | .      .                      .      .
       | .     RE blanking fraction    .      .
    3% |-------------------------------+=======
       | .      .                      |      .
    2% | .      .                      |      .
       | .      .  CE marking fraction |      .
    1% | .      +----------------------+      .
       | .      |                      .      .
    0% +--------------------------------------->
         ^      0     ^                i      ^   resource index
         0      ^     1                ^      2   observation points
                |                      |
              1.00%                  2.00%        marking fraction

                 Figure 1: A 2-Router Example (Imprecise)

   Figure 1 uses a simple network to illustrate how re-ECN allows
   routers to measure downstream congestion.  The horizontal axis
   represents the index of each congestible resource (typically queues)
   along a path through the Internet.  There may be many routers on the
   path, but we assume only two are currently congested (those with
   resource index 0 and i).  The two superimposed plots show the
   fraction of each extended ECN codepoint in a flow observed along this
   path.  Given about 3% of packets reaching the destination are marked
   CE, in response to feedback the sender will blank the RE flag in
   about 3% of packets it sends.  Then approximate downstream congestion
   can be measured at the observation points shown along the path by
   subtracting the CE marking fraction from the RE blanking fraction, as
   shown in the table below (Appendix A derives these approximations
   from a precise analysis).

           +-------------------+------------------------------+
           | Observation point | Approx downstream congestion |
           +-------------------+------------------------------+
           |         0         |         3% - 0% = 3%         |
           |         1         |         3% - 1% = 2%         |
           |         2         |         3% - 3% = 0%         |
           +-------------------+------------------------------+

   Table 2: Downstream Congestion Measured at Example Observation Points

   All along the path, whole-path congestion remains unchanged so it can



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   be used as a reference against which to compare upstream congestion.
   The difference predicts downstream congestion for the rest of the
   path.  Therefore, measuring the fractions of each codepoint at any
   point in the Internet will reveal upstream, downstream and whole path
   congestion.

   Note that we have introduced discussion of marking and blanking
   fractions solely for illustration.  To be absolutely clear, these
   fractions are averages that would result from the behaviour of a TCP
   protocol handler mechanically blanking outgoing packets in direct
   response to incoming feedback---we are not saying any protocol
   handler works with these average fractions directly.

3.4.  Informal Terminology

   In the rest of this memo we will loosely talk of positive or negative
   flows, meaning flows where the moving average of the downstream
   congestion metric is persistently positive or negative.  The notion
   of a negative metric arises because it is derived by subtracting one
   metric from another.  Of course actual downstream congestion cannot
   be negative, only the metric can (whether due to time lags or
   deliberate malice).

   Just as we will loosely talk of positive and negative flows, we will
   also talk of positive or negative packets, meaning packets that
   contribute positively or negatively to the downstream congestion
   metric.

   Therefore we will talk of packets having `worth' of +1, 0 or -1,
   which, when multiplied by their size, indicates their contribution to
   the downstream congestion metric.

   Figure 2 shows the main state transitions of the system once a flow
   is established, showing the worth of packets in each state.  When the
   network congestion marks a packet it decrements its worth (moving
   from the left of the main square to the right).  When the sender
   blanks the RE flag in order to re-echo congestion it increments the
   worth of a packet (moving from the bottom of the main square to the
   top).












Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   Sender state         Sent     Worth            Received   Worth
                        packet                    packet
            +----------------------------------------------------+
            |                                                    ^
            V                                                    |
   Congestion echoed -->Re-Echo  +1  --+--->      CE(0)      0 --+
                        (positive)     |            (canceled)   |
                                       V    network              |
                                       |   congestion            |
                                       |                         |
   Flow established --> RECT      0  ----+->      CE(-1)    -1 --+
            ^           (neutral)      | |          (negative)
            |                          | |
            |                      no  V V
            |               congestion | |
            +-----------<--------------+-+

        Figure 2: Re-ECN System State Diagram (bootstrap not shown)

   The idea is that every time the network decrements the worth of a
   packet, the sender increments the worth of a later packet.  Then,
   over time, as many positive octets should arrive at the receiver as
   negative.  Note we have said octets not packets, so if packets are of
   different sizes, the worth should be incremented on enough octets to
   balance the octets in negative packets arriving at the receiver.  It
   is this balance that will allow the network to hold the sender
   accountable for the congestion it causes, as we shall see.  The
   informal outline below uses TCP as an example transport, but the idea
   would be broadly similar for any transport that adapts its rate to
   congestion.

   We will start with the sender in `flow established' state.  Normally,
   as acknowledgements of earlier packets arrive that don't feedback any
   congestion, the congestion window can be opened, so the sender goes
   round the smaller sub-loop, sending RECT packets (worth 0) and
   returning to the flow established state to send another one.  If a
   router congestion marks one of the packets, it decrements the
   packet's worth.  The sender will have been continuing to traverse
   round the smaller feedback loop every time acknowledgements arrive.
   But when congestion feedback returns from this packet that was marked
   with -1 worth (the largest loop in the figure) the sender jumps to
   the congestion echoed state in order to re-echo the congestion,
   incrementing the worth of the next packet to +1 by blanking its RE
   flag.  The sender then returns to the flow established state and
   continues round the smaller loop, sending packets worth 0.  Note that
   the size of the loops is just an artefact of the figure; it is not
   meant to imply that one loop is slower than the other - they are both
   the same end to end feedback loop.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   If a packet carrying re-echoed congestion happens to also be
   congestion marked, the +1 worth added by the sender will be cancelled
   out by the -1 network congestion marking.  Although the two worth
   values correctly cancel out, neither the congestion marking nor the
   re-echoed congestion are lost, because the RE bit and the ECN field
   are orthogonal.  So, whenever this happens, the receiver will
   correctly detect and re-echo the new congestion event as well (the
   top sub-loop).  When we need to distinguish, we will sometimes call a
   packet marked RECT 'neutral' (0 worth), while we will call the CE(0)
   marking 'canceled' (also 0 worth).  If a re-echoed packet isn't
   unlucky enough to be further congestion marked, the sender will
   return to the flow established state and continue to send RECT
   packets (worth 0).

   The table below specifies unambiguously the worth of each extended
   ECN codepoint.  Note the order is different from the previous table
   to better show how the worth increments and decrements.  The FNE
   codepoint is an exception.  It is used in the flow bootstrap process
   (explained later) and has the same positive (+1) worth as a packet
   with the Re-Echo codepoint.

   +--------+------+----------------+-------+--------------------------+
   |   ECN  |  RE  | Extended ECN   | Worth |      Re-ECN meaning      |
   |  field |  bit | codepoint      |       |                          |
   +--------+------+----------------+-------+--------------------------+
   |   00   |   0  | Not-RECT       | ...   |    Not re-ECN-capable    |
   |        |      |                |       |         transport        |
   |   01   |   0  | Re-Echo        | +1    | Re-echoed congestion and |
   |        |      |                |       |           RECT           |
   |   10   |   0  | ---            | ...   |  Legacy ECN use only     |
   |   11   |   0  | CE(0)          |  0    |    Re-Echo canceled by   |
   |        |      |                |       |  congestion experienced  |
   |   00   |   1  | FNE            | +1    | Feedback not established |
   |   01   |   1  | RECT           |  0    | Re-ECN capable transport |
   |   10   |   1  | --CU--         | ...   |     Currently unused     |
   |        |      |                |       |                          |
   |   11   |   1  | CE(-1)         | -1    |  Congestion experienced  |
   +--------+------+----------------+-------+--------------------------+

                Table 3: 'Worth' of Extended ECN Codepoints


4.  Transport Layers

4.1.  TCP

   Re-ECN capability at the sender is essential.  At the receiver it is
   optional, as long as the receiver has a basic (`vanilla flavour')



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   RFC3168-compliant ECN-capable transport (ECT) [RFC3168].  Given re-
   ECN is not the first attempt to define the semantics of the ECN
   field, we give a table below summarising what happens for various
   combinations of capabilities of the sender S and receiver R, as
   indicated in the first four columns below.  The last column gives the
   mode a half-connection should be in after the first two of the three
   TCP handshakes.

   +--------+--------------+------------+---------+--------------------+
   | Re-ECT |   ECT-Nonce  |     ECT    | Not-ECT |         S-R        |
   |        |   (RFC3540)  |  (RFC3168) |         |   Half-connection  |
   |        |              |            |         |        Mode        |
   +--------+--------------+------------+---------+--------------------+
   |   SR   |              |            |         |        RECN        |
   |    S   |       R      |            |         |       RECN-Co      |
   |    S   |              |      R     |         |       RECN-Co      |
   |    S   |              |            |    R    |       Not-ECT      |
   +--------+--------------+------------+---------+--------------------+

       Table 4: Modes of TCP Half-connection for Combinations of ECN
                  Capabilities of Sender S and Receiver R

   We will describe what happens in each mode, then describe how they
   are negotiated.  The abbreviations for the modes in the above table
   mean:

   RECN:  Full re-ECN capable transport

   RECN-Co:  Re-ECN sender in compatibility mode with a
      vanilla [RFC3168] ECN receiver or an [RFC3540] ECN nonce-capable
      receiver.  Implementation of this mode is OPTIONAL.

   Not-ECT:  Not ECN-capable transport, as defined in [RFC3168] for when
      at least one of the transports does not understand even basic ECN
      marking.

   Note that we use the term Re-ECT for a host transport that is re-ECN-
   capable but RECN for the modes of the half connections between hosts
   when they are both Re-ECT.  If a host transport is Re-ECT, this fact
   alone does NOT imply either of its half connections will necessarily
   be in RECN mode, at least not until it has confirmed that the other
   host is Re-ECT.

4.1.1.  RECN mode: Full re-ECN capable transport

   In full RECN mode, for each half connection, both the sender and the
   receiver each maintain an unsigned integer counter we will call ECC
   (echo congestion counter).  The receiver maintains a count, modulo 8,



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   of how many times a CE marked packet has arrived during the half-
   connection.  Once a RECN connection is established, the three TCP
   option flags (ECE, CWR & NS) used for ECN-related functions in other
   versions of ECN are used as a 3-bit field for the receiver to
   repeatedly tell the sender the current value of ECC whenever it sends
   a TCP ACK.  We will call this the echo congestion increment (ECI)
   field.  This overloaded use of these 3 option flags as one 3-bit ECI
   field is shown in Figure 4.  The actual definition of the TCP header,
   including the addition of support for the ECN nonce, is shown for
   comparison in Figure 3.  This specification does not redefine the
   names of these three TCP option flags, it merely overloads them with
   another definition once a flow is established.

        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: Definition of the ECI field within bytes 13 and 14 of the
   TCP Header, overloading the current definitions above for established
                                RECN flows.

   Receiver Action in RECN Mode

      Every time a CE marked packet arrives at a receiver in RECN mode,
      the receiver transport increments its local value of ECC modulo 8
      and MUST echo its value to the sender in the ECI field of the next
      ACK.  It MUST repeat the same value of ECI in every subsequent ACK
      until the next CE event, when it increments ECI again.


      The increment of the local ECC 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).




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      A receiver in RECN mode MAY delay the echo of a CE to the next
      delayed-ACK, which would be necessary if ACK-withholding were
      implemented.

   Sender Action in RECN Mode

      On the arrival of every ACK, the sender compares the ECI field
      with its own ECC value, then replaces its local value with that
      from the ACK.  The difference D is assumed to be the number of CE
      marked packets that arrived at the receiver since it sent the
      previously received ACK (but see below for the sender's safety
      strategy).  Whenever the ECI field increments by D (and/or d drops
      are detected), the sender MUST clear the RE flag to "0" in the IP
      header of the next D' data packets it sends (where D' = D + d),
      effectively re-echoing each single increment of ECI.  Otherwise
      the data sender MUST send all data packets with RE set to "1".


      As a general rule, once a flow is established, as well as setting
      or clearing the RE flag as above, a data sender in RECN mode MUST
      always set the ECN field to ECT(1).  However, the settings of the
      extended ECN field during flow start are defined in Section 4.1.4.


      As we have already emphasised, 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.


      A TCP sender also acts as the receiver for the other half-
      connection.  The host will maintain two ECC values S.ECC and R.ECC
      as sender and receiver respectively.  Every TCP header sent by a
      host in RECN mode will also repeat the prevailing value of R.ECC
      in its ECI field.  If a sender in RECN mode has to retransmit a
      packet due to a suspected loss, the re-transmitted packet MUST
      carry the latest prevailing value of R.ECC when it is re-
      transmitted, which will not necessarily be the one it carried
      originally.

4.1.1.1.  Drops and Marks

   Re-ECN is based on the ECN protocol [RFC3168] which in turn is
   typically based on the RED algorithm [RFC2309].  This algorithm marks
   packets as CE with a probability that increases as the size of the
   router queue increases.  Howeverif the queue becomes too full then it
   will revert to dropping packets.  Because of this it is important



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   that re-ECN treats each packet drop it detects as if it were actually
   a CE mark.  This ensures that it can continue to correctly echo
   congestion even through a highly congested path.

   In order to ensure that drops are correctly echoed the sender needs
   to add the number of drops detected per RTT to the difference in ECI
   value waiting to be echoed.  A drop is defined as set out in
   [RFC2581] -- if the connection is in slow start then a single
   duplicate aknowledgement will be treated as an indication of a drop.
   When the system is in the congestion avoidance stage then 3 duplicate
   acknowledgements will be treated as a sign of a drop.  In all cases,
   if a re-transmission time-out occurs then that will be treatd as a
   drop.

4.1.1.2.  Safety against Long Pure ACK Loss Sequences

   The ECI method was chosen for echoing congestion marking because a
   re-ECN sender needs to know about every CE mark arriving at the
   receiver, not just whether at least one arrives within a round trip
   time (which is all the ECE/CWR mechanism supported).  And, as pure
   ACKs are not protected by TCP reliable delivery, 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.  So, if the marking
   fraction was p, at least 8/p pure ACKs would have to be lost.  For
   example, if p was 5%, a sequence of 160 pure ACKs would all have to
   be lost.  To protect against such extremely unlikely events, if a re-
   ECN sender detects a sequence of pure ACKs has been lost it SHOULD
   assume the ECI field wrapped as many times as possible within the
   sequence.

   Specifically, if a re-ECN sender receives an ACK with an
   acknowledgement number that acknowledges L segments since the
   previous ACK but with a sequence number unchanged from the previously
   received ACK, it SHOULD conservatively assume that the ECI field
   incremented by D' = L - ((L-D) mod 8), where D is the apparent
   increase in the ECI field.  For example if the ACK arriving after 9
   pure ACK losses apparently increased ECI by 2, the assumed increment
   of ECI would still be 2.  But if ECI apparently increased by 2 after
   11 pure ACK losses, ECI should be assumed to have increased by 10.

   A re-ECN sender MAY implement a heuristic algorithm to predict beyond
   reasonable doubt that the ECI field probably did not wrap within a



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   sequence of lost pure ACKs.  But such an algorithm is NOT REQUIRED.
   Such an algorithm MUST NOT be used unless it is proven to work even
   in the presence of correlation between high ACK loss rate on the back
   channel and high CE marking rate on the forward channel.

   Whatever assumption a re-ECN sender makes about potentially lost CE
   marks, both its congestion control and its re-echoing behaviour
   SHOULD be consistent with the assumption it makes.

4.1.2.  RECN-Co mode: Re-ECT Sender with a Vanilla or Nonce ECT Receiver

   If the half-connection is in RECN-Co mode, ECN feedback proceeds no
   differently to that of vanilla ECN.  In other words, the receiver
   sets the ECE flag repeatedly in the TCP header and the sender
   responds by setting the CWR flag.  Although RECN-Co mode is used when
   the receiver has not implemented the re-ECN protocol, the sender can
   infer enough from its vanilla ECN feedback to set or clear the RE
   flag reasonably well.  Specifically, every time the receiver toggles
   the ECE field from "0" to "1" (or a loss is detected), as well as
   setting CWR in the TCP flags, the re-ECN sender MUST blank the RE
   flag of the next packet to "0" as it would do in full RECN mode.
   Otherwise, the data sender SHOULD send all other packets with RE set
   to "1".  Once a flow is established, a re-ECN data sender in RECN-Co
   mode MUST always set the ECN field to ECT(1).

   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 very occasionally the RE blanking fraction will be
   understated.  Therefore flows in RECN-Co mode may occasionally be
   mistaken for very lightly cheating flows and consequently might
   suffer a small number of packet drops through an egress dropper
   (Section 6.1.4).  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, reducing to nothing over the
   years as vanilla ECN hosts upgrade.  The use of RECN-Co mode would
   need to be reviewed in the light of experience at the time of re-ECN
   deployment.

   RECN-Co 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 re-ECN implementers don't want to be bothered with
   RECN-Co mode, they probably won't want to add an ECT-Nonce mode
   either.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


4.1.2.1.  Re-ECN support for the ECN Nonce

   A TCP half-connection in RECN-Co mode MUST NOT support the ECN
   Nonce [RFC3540].  This means that the sending code of a re-ECN
   implementation will never need to include ECN Nonce support.  Re-ECN
   is intended to provide wider protection than the ECN nonce against
   congestion control misbehaviour, and re-ECN only requires support
   from the sender, therefore it is preferable to specifically rule out
   the need for dual sender implementations.  As a consequence, a re-ECN
   capable sender will never set ECT(0), so it will be easier for
   network elements to discriminate re-ECN traffic flows from other ECN
   traffic, which will always contain some ECT(0) packets.

   However, a re-ECN implementation MAY OPTIONALLY include receiving
   code that complies with the ECN Nonce protocol when interacting with
   a sender that supports the ECN nonce (rather than re-ECN), but this
   support is NOT REQUIRED.

   RFC3540 allows an ECN nonce sender to choose whether to sanction a
   receiver that does not ever set the nonce sum.  Given re-ECN is
   intended to provide wider protection than the ECN nonce against
   congestion control misbehaviour, implementers of re-ECN receivers MAY
   choose not to implement backwards compatibility with the ECN nonce
   capability.  This may be because they deem that the risk of sanctions
   is low, perhaps because significant deployment of the ECN nonce seems
   unlikely at implementation time.

4.1.3.  Capability Negotiation

   During the TCP hand-shake at the start of a connection, an originator
   of the connection (host A) with a re-ECN-capable transport MUST
   indicate it is 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) MUST return a SYN ACK with flags
   CWR=1 and ECE=0.  The responding host MUST NOT set this combination
   of flags unless the preceding SYN has already indicated Re-ECT
   support as above.  A Re-ECT server (B) can use either setting of the
   NS flag combined with this type of SYN ACK in response to a SYN from
   a Re-ECT client (A).  Normally a Re-ECT server will reply to a Re-ECT
   client with NS=0, but in the special circumstance below it can return
   a SYN ACK with NS=1.

   If the initial SYN from Re-ECT client A is marked CE(-1), a Re-ECT
   server B MUST increment its local value of ECC.  But B cannot reflect
   the value of ECC in the SYN ACK, because it is still using the 3 bits
   to negotiate connection capabilities.  So, server B MUST set the
   alternative TCP header flags in its SYN ACK: NS=1, CWR=1 and ECE=0.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   These handshakes are summarised in Table 5 below, with X meaning
   `don't care'.  The handshakes used for the other flavours of ECN are
   also shown for comparison.  To compress the width of the table, the
   headings of the first four columns have been severely abbreviated, as
   follows:

      R: *R*e-ECT

      N: ECT-*N*once (RFC3540)

      E: *E*CT (RFC3168)

      I: Not-ECT (*I*mplicit congestion notification).

   These correspond with the same headings used in Table 4.  Indeed, the
   resulting modes in the last two columns of the table below are a more
   comprehensive way of saying the same thing as Table 4.

   +----+---+---+---+------------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
   | R  | N | E | I |   SYN A-B  | SYN ACK B-A |  A-B Mode |  B-A Mode |
   +----+---+---+---+------------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
   |    |   |   |   | NS CWR ECE |  NS CWR ECE |           |           |
   | AB |   |   |   |  1   1   1 |  X   1   0  |    RECN   |    RECN   |
   | A  | B |   |   |  1   1   1 |  1   0   1  |  RECN-Co  | ECT-Nonce |
   | A  |   | B |   |  1   1   1 |  0   0   1  |  RECN-Co  |    ECT    |
   | A  |   |   | B |  1   1   1 |  0   0   0  |  Not-ECT  |  Not-ECT  |
   | B  | A |   |   |  0   1   1 |  0   0   1  | ECT-Nonce |  RECN-Co  |
   | B  |   | A |   |  0   1   1 |  0   0   1  |    ECT    |  RECN-Co  |
   | B  |   |   | A |  0   0   0 |  0   0   0  |  Not-ECT  |  Not-ECT  |
   +----+---+---+---+------------+-------------+-----------+-----------+

      Table 5: TCP Capability Negotiation between Originator (A) and
                               Responder (B)

   As soon as a re-ECN capable TCP server receives a SYN, it MUST set
   its two half-connections into the modes given in Table 5.  As soon as
   a re-ECN capable TCP client receives a SYN ACK, it MUST set its two
   half-connections into the modes given in Table 5.  The half-
   connections will remain in these modes for the rest of the
   connection, including for the third segment of TCP's three-way hand-
   shake (the ACK).

   {ToDo: Consider SYNs within a connection.}

   Recall that, if the SYN ACK reflects the same flag settings as the
   preceding SYN (because there is a broken legacy implementation that
   behaves this way), RFC3168 specifies that the whole connection MUST
   revert to Not-ECT.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   Also note that, whenever the SYN flag of a TCP segment is set
   (including when the ACK flag is also set), the NS, CWR and ECE flags
   MUST NOT be interpreted as the 3-bit ECI value, which is only set as
   a copy of the local ECC value in non-SYN packets.

4.1.4.  Extended ECN (EECN) Field Settings during Flow Start or after
        Idle Periods

   If the originator (A) of a TCP connection supports re-ECN it MUST set
   the extended ECN (EECN) field in the IP header of the initial SYN
   packet to the feedback not established (FNE) codepoint.

   FNE is a new extended ECN codepoint defined by this specification
   (Section 3.2).  The feedback not established (FNE) codepoint is used
   when the transport does not have the benefit of ECN feedback so it
   cannot decide whether to set or clear the RE flag.

   If after receiving a SYN the server B has set its sending half-
   connection into RECN mode or RECN-Co mode, it MUST set the extended
   ECN field in the IP header of its SYN ACK to the feedback not
   established (FNE) codepoint.  Note the careful wording here, which
   means that Re-ECT server B MUST set FNE on a SYN ACK whether it is
   responding to a SYN from a Re-ECT client or from a client that is
   merely ECN-capable.

   The original ECN specification [RFC3168] required SYNs and SYN ACKs
   to use the Not-ECT codepoint of the ECN field.  The aim was to
   prevent well-known DoS attacks such as SYN flooding being able to
   gain from the advantage that ECN capability afforded over drop at
   ECN-capable routers.

   For a SYN ACK, Kuzmanovic [I-D.ietf-tcpm-ecnsyn] has shown that this
   caution was unnecessary, and proposes to allow a SYN ACK to be ECN-
   capable to improve performance.  We have gone further by proposing to
   make the initial SYN ECN-capable too.  By stipulating the FNE
   codepoint for the initial SYN, we comply with RFC3168 in word but not
   in spirit, because we have indeed set the ECN field to Not-ECT, but
   we have extended the ECN field with another bit.  And it will be seen
   (Section 5.3) that we have defined one setting of that bit to mean an
   ECN-capable transport.  Therefore, by proposing that the FNE
   codepoint MUST be used on the initial SYN of a connection, we have
   (deliberately) made the initial SYN ECN-capable.  Section 5.4
   justifies deciding to make the initial SYN ECN-capable.

   Once a TCP half connection is in RECN mode or RECN-Co mode, FNE will
   have already been set on the initial SYN and possibly the SYN ACK as
   above.  But each re-ECN sender will have to set FNE cautiously on a
   few data packets as well, given a number of packets will usually have



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   to be sent before sufficient congestion feedback is received.  The
   behaviour will be different depending on the mode of the half-
   connection:

   RECN mode:  Given the constraints on TCP's initial window [RFC3390]
      and its exponential window increase during slow start
      phase [RFC2581], it turns out that the sender SHOULD set FNE on
      the first and third data packets in its flow, assuming equal sized
      data packets once a flow is established.  Appendix D presents the
      calculation that led to this conclusion.  Below, after running
      through the start of an example TCP session, we give the intuition
      learned from that calculation.

   RECN-Co mode:  A re-ECT sender that switches into re-ECN
      compatibility mode or into Not-ECT mode (because it has detected
      the corresponding host is not re-ECN capable) MUST limit its
      initial window to 1 segment.  The reasoning behind this constraint
      is given in Section 5.4.  Having set this initial window, a re-ECN
      sender in RECN-Co mode SHOULD set FNE on the first and third data
      packets in a flow, as for RECN mode.

   +----+------+----------------+-------+-------+---------------+------+
   |    | Data | TCP A(Re-ECT)  | IP A  | IP B  | TCP B(Re-ECT) | Data |
   +----+------+----------------+-------+-------+---------------+------+
   |    | Byte |  SEQ  ACK CTL  | EECN  | EECN  |  SEQ  ACK CTL | Byte |
   | -- | ---- | -------------  | ----- | ----- | ------------- | ---- |
   |  1 |      | 0100      SYN  | FNE   | -->   |      R.ECC=0  |      |
   |    |      |    CWR,ECE,NS  |       |       |               |      |
   |  2 |      |      R.ECC=0   | <--   | FNE   | 0300 0101     |      |
   |    |      |                |       |       |   SYN,ACK,CWR |      |
   |  3 |      | 0101 0301 ACK  | RECT  | -->   |      R.ECC=0  |      |
   |  4 | 1000 | 0101 0301 ACK  | FNE   | -->   |      R.ECC=0  |      |
   |  5 |      |      R.ECC=0   | <--   | FNE   | 0301 1102 ACK | 1460 |
   |  6 |      |      R.ECC=0   | <--   | RECT  | 1762 1102 ACK | 1460 |
   |  7 |      |      R.ECC=0   | <--   | FNE   | 3222 1102 ACK | 1460 |
   |  8 |      | 1102 1762 ACK  | RECT  | -->   |      R.ECC=0  |      |
   |  9 |      |      R.ECC=0   | <--   | RECT  | 4682 1102 ACK | 1460 |
   | 10 |      |      R.ECC=0   | <--   | RECT  | 6142 1102 ACK | 1460 |
   | 11 |      | 1102 3222 ACK  | RECT  | -->   |      R.ECC=0  |      |
   | 12 |      |      R.ECC=0   | <--   | RECT  | 7602 1102 ACK | 1460 |
   | 13 |      |      R.ECC=1   | <*-   | RECT  | 9062 1102 ACK | 1460 |
   |    |      | ...            |       |       |               |      |
   +----+------+----------------+-------+-------+---------------+------+

                      Table 6: TCP Session Example #1

   Table 6 shows an example TCP session, where the server B sets FNE on
   its first and third data packets (lines 5 & 7) as well as on the



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   initial SYN ACK as previously described.  The left hand half of the
   table shows the relevant settings of headers sent by client A in
   three layers: the TCP payload size; TCP settings; then IP settings.
   The right hand half gives equivalent columns for server B. The only
   TCP settings shown are the sequence number (SEQ), acknowledgement
   number (ACK) and the relevant control (CTL) flags that A sets in the
   TCP header.  The IP columns show the setting of the extended ECN
   (EECN) field.

   Also shown on the receiving side of the table is the value of the
   receiver's echo congestion counter (R.ECC) after processing the
   incoming EECN header.  Note that, once a host sets a half-connection
   into RECN mode, it MUST initialise its local value of ECC to zero.

   The intuition that Appendix D gives for why a sender should set FNE
   on the first and third data packets is as follows.  At line 13, a
   packet sent by B is shown with an '*', which means it has been
   congestion marked by an intermediate router from RECT to CE(-1).  On
   receiving this CE marked packet, client A increments its ECC counter
   to 1 as shown.  This was the 7th data packet B sent, but before
   feedback about this event returns to B, it might well have sent many
   more packets.  Indeed, during exponential slow start, about as many
   packets will be in flight (unacknowledged) as have been acknowledged.
   So, when the feedback from the congestion event on B's 7th segment
   returns, B will have sent about 7 further packets that will still be
   in flight.  At that stage, B's best estimate of the network's packet
   marking fraction will be 1/7.  So, as B will have sent about 14
   packets, it should have already marked 2 of them as FNE in order to
   have marked 1/7; hence the need to have set the first and third data
   packets to FNE.

   Client A's behaviour in Table 6 also shows FNE being set on the first
   SYN and the first data packet (lines 1 & 4), but in this case it
   sends no more data packets, so of course, it cannot, and does not
   need to, set FNE again.  Note that in the A-B direction there is no
   need to set FNE on the third part of the three-way hand-shake (line
   3---the ACK).

   Note that in this section we have used the word SHOULD rather than
   MUST when specifying how to set FNE on data segments before positive
   congestion feedback arrives (but note that the word MUST was used for
   FNE on the SYN and SYN ACK).  FNE is only RECOMMENDED for the first
   and third data segments to entertain the possibility that the TCP
   transport has the benefit of other knowledge of the path, which it
   re-uses from one flow for the benefit of a newly starting flow.  For
   instance, one flow can re-use knowledge of other flows between the
   same hosts if using a Congestion Manager [RFC3124] or when a proxy
   host aggregates congestion information for large numbers of flows.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   After an idle period of more than 1 second, a re-ECN sender transport
   MUST set the EECN field of the packet that resumes the connection to
   FNE.  Note that this next packet may be sent a very long time later,
   a packet does NOT have to be sent after 1 second of idling.  In order
   that the design of network policers can be deterministic, this
   specification deliberately puts an absolute lower limit on how long a
   connection can be idle before the packet that resumes the connection
   must be set to FNE, rather than relating it to the connection round
   trip time.  We use the lower bound of the retransmission timeout
   (RTO) [RFC2988], which is commonly used as the idle period before TCP
   must reduce to the restart window [RFC2581].  Note our specification
   of re-ECN's idle period is NOT intended to change the idle period for
   TCP's restart, nor indeed for any other purposes.

   {ToDo: Describe how the sender falls back to legacy modes if packets
   don't appear to be getting through (to work round firewalls
   discarding packets they consider unusual).}

4.1.5.  Pure ACKS, Retransmissions, Window Probes and Partial ACKs

   A re-ECN sender MUST clear the RE flag to "0" and set the ECN field
   to Not-ECT in pure ACKs, retransmissions and window probes, as
   specified in [RFC3168].  Our eventual goal is for all packets to be
   sent with re-ECN enabled, and we believe the semantics of the ECI
   field go a long way towards being able to achieve this.  However, we
   have not completed a full security analysis for these cases,
   therefore, currently we merely re-state current practice.

   We must also reconcile the facts that congestion marking is applied
   to packets but acknowledgements cover octet ranges and acknowledged
   octet boundaries need not match the transmitted boundaries.  The
   general principle we work to is to remain compatible with TCP's
   congestion control which is driven by congestion events at packet
   granularity while at the same time aiming to blank the RE flag on at
   least as many octets in a flow as have been marked CE.

   Therefore, a re-ECN TCP receiver MUST increment its ECC value as many
   times as CE marked packets have been received.  And that value MUST
   be echoed to the sender in the first available ACK using the ECI
   field.  This ensures the TCP sender's congestion control receives
   timely feedback on congestion events at the same packet granularity
   that they were generated on congested routers.

   Then, a re-ECN sender stores the difference D between its own ECC
   value and the incoming ECI field by incrementing a counter R. Then, R
   is decremented by 1 each subsequent packet that is sent with the RE
   flag blanked, until R is no longer positive.  Using this technique,
   whenever a re-ECN transport sends a not re-ECN capable (NRECN) packet



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   (e.g. a retransmission), the remaining packets required to have the
   RE flag blanked will be automatically carried over to subsequent
   packets, through the variable R.

   This does not ensure precisely the same number of octets have RE
   blanked as were CE marked.  But we believe positive errors will
   cancel negative over a long enough period. {ToDo: However, more
   research is needed to prove whether this is so.  If it is not, it may
   be necessary to increment and decrement R in octets rather than
   packets, by incrementing R as the product of D and the size in octets
   of packets being sent (typically the MSS).}

4.2.  Other Transports

4.2.1.  General Guidelines for Adding Re-ECN to Other Transports

   Re-ECT sender transports that have established the receiver transport
   is at least ECN-capable (not necessarily re-ECN capable) MUST blank
   the RE codepoint in packets carrying at least as many octets as
   arrive at receiver with the CE codepoint set.  Re-ECN-capable sender
   transports should always initialise the ECN field to the ECT(1)
   codepoint once a flow is established.

   If the sender transport does not have sufficient feedback to even
   estimate the path's CE rate, it SHOULD set FNE continuously.  If the
   sender transport has some, perhaps stale, feedback to estimate that
   the path's CE rate is nearly definitely less than E%, the transport
   MAY blank RE in packets for E% of sent octets, and set the RECT
   codepoint for the remainder.

   The following sections give guidelines on how re-ECN support could be
   added to RSVP or NSIS, to DCCP, and to SCTP - although separate
   Internet drafts will be necessary to document the exact mechanics of
   re-ECN in each of these protocols.

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

   o  UDP fire and forget (e.g.  DNS)

   o  UDP streaming with no feedback

   o  UDP streaming with feedback

   }






Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


4.2.2.  Guidelines for adding Re-ECN to RSVP or NSIS

   A separate I-D has been submitted [Re-PCN] 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 flow reservations when downstream
   congestion is too high, even though the congestion is in other
   operators' downstream networks.  This relates to current IETF work on
   Admission Control over Diffserv using Pre-Congestion Notification
   (PCN)  [PCN-arch].

4.2.3.  Guidelines for adding Re-ECN to DCCP

   Beside adjusting the initial features negotiation sequence, operating
   re-ECN in DCCP [RFC4340] could be achieved by defining a new option
   to be added to acknowledgments, that would include a multibit field
   where the destination could copy its ECC.

4.2.4.  Guidelines for adding Re-ECN to SCTP

   Annex 1 in [RFC2960] gives the specifications for SCTP to support
   ECN.  Similar steps should be taken to support re-ECN.  Beside
   adjusting the initial features negotiation sequence, operating re-ECN
   in SCTP could be achieved by defining a new control chunk, that would
   include a multibit field where the destination could copy its ECC


5.  Network Layer

5.1.  Re-ECN IPv4 Wire Protocol

   The wire protocol of the ECN field in the IP header remains largely
   unchanged from [RFC3168].  However, an extension to the ECN field we
   call the RE (re-ECN extension) flag (Section 3.2) is defined in this
   document.  It doubles the extended ECN codepoint space, giving 8
   potential codepoints.  The semantics of the extra codepoints are
   backward compatible with the semantics of the 4 original codepoints
   [RFC3168] (Section 7.1 collects together and summarises all the
   changes defined in this document).

   For IPv4, this document proposes that the new RE control flag will be
   positioned where the `reserved' control flag was 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 (Figure 5).






Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


             0   1   2
           +---+---+---+
           | R | D | M |
           | E | F | F |
           +---+---+---+

   Figure 5: New Definition of the Re-ECN Extension (RE) Control Flag at
                  the Start of Byte 7 of the IPv4 Header

   The semantics of the RE flag are described in outline in Section 3
   and specified fully in Section 4.  The RE flag is always considered
   in conjunction with the 2-bit ECN field, as if they were concatenated
   together to form a 3-bit extended ECN field.  If the ECN field is set
   to either the ECT(1) or CE codepoint, when the RE flag is blanked
   (cleared to "0") it represents a re-echo of congestion experienced by
   an early packet.  If the ECN field is set to the Not-ECT codepoint,
   when the RE flag is set to "1" it represents the feedback not
   established (FNE) codepoint, which signals that the packet was sent
   without the benefit of congestion feedback.

   It is believed that the FNE codepoint can simultaneously serve other
   purposes, particularly where the start of a flow needs distinguishing
   from packets later in the flow.  For instance it would have been
   useful to identify new flows for tag switching and might enable
   similar developments in the future if it were adopted.  It is similar
   to the state set-up bit idea designed to protect against memory
   exhaustion attacks.  This idea was proposed informally by David Clark
   and documented by Handley and Greenhalgh [Steps_DoS].  The FNE
   codepoint can be thought of as a `soft-state set-up flag', because it
   is idempotent (i.e. one occurrence of the flag is sufficient but
   further occurrences achieve the same effect if previous ones were
   lost).

   We are sure there will probably be other claims pending on the use of
   bit 48.  We know of at least two [ARI05], [RFC3514] but neither have
   been pursued in the IETF, so far, although the present proposal would
   meet the needs of the former.

   The security flag proposal (commonly known as the evil bit) was
   published on 1 April 2003 as Informational RFC 3514, but it was not
   adopted due to confusion over whether evil-doers might set it
   inappropriately.  The present proposal is backward compatible with
   RFC3514 because if re-ECN compliant senders were benign they would
   correctly clear the evil bit to honestly declare that they had just
   received congestion feedback.  Whereas evil-doers would hide
   congestion feedback by setting the evil bit continuously, or at least
   more often than they should.  So, evil senders can be identified,
   because they declare that they are good less often than they should.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


5.2.  Re-ECN IPv6 Wire Protocol

   For IPv6, this document proposes that the new RE control flag will be
   positioned as the first bit of the option field of a new Congestion
   hop by hop option header (Figure 6).

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  Next Header  |  Hdr ext Len  |  Option Type  | Opt Length =4 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |R|                     Reserved for future use                 |
       |E|                                                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 6: Definition of a New IPv6 Congestion Hop by Hop Option
         Header containing the Re-ECN Extension (RE) Control Flag


               0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
               |AIU|C|Option ID|
               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

           Figure 7: Congestion Hop by Hop Option Type Encoding

   The Hop-by-Hop Options header enables packets to carry information to
   be examined and processed by routers or nodes along the packet's
   delivery path, including the source and destination nodes.  For re-
   ECN, the two bits of the Action If Unrecognized (AIU) flag of the
   Congestion extension header MUST be set to "00" meaning if
   unrecognized `skip over option and continue processing the header'.
   Then, any routers or a receiver not upgraded with the optional re-ECN
   features described in this memo will simply ignore this header.  But
   routers with these optional re-ECN features or a re-ECN policing
   function, will process this Congestion extension header.

   The `C' flag MUST be set to "1" to specify that the Option Data
   (currently only the RE control flag) can change en-route to the
   packet's final destination.  This ensures that, when an
   Authentication header (AH [RFC2402]) is present in the packet, for
   any option whose data may change en-route, its entire Option Data
   field will be treated as zero-valued octets when computing or
   verifying the packet's authenticating value.

   Although the RE control flag should not be changed along the path, we
   expect that the rest of this option field that is currently `Reserved
   for future use' could be used for a multi-bit congestion notification



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   field which we would expect to change en route.  As the RE flag does
   not need end-to-end authentication, we set the C flag to '1'.

   {ToDo: A Congestion Hop by Hop Option ID will need to be registered
   with IANA.}

5.3.  Router Forwarding Behaviour

   Re-ECN works well without modifying the forwarding behaviour of any
   routers.  However, below, two OPTIONAL changes to forwarding
   behaviour are defined which respectively enhance performance and
   improve a router's discrimination against flooding attacks.  They are
   both OPTIONAL additions that we propose MAY apply by default to all
   Diffserv per-hop scheduling behaviours (PHBs) [RFC2475] and ECN
   marking behaviours [RFC3168].  Specifications for PHBs MAY define
   different forwarding behaviours from this default, but this is NOT
   REQUIRED.  [Re-PCN] is one example.

   FNE indicates ECT:

      The FNE codepoint tells a router to assume that the packet was
      sent by an ECN-capable transport (see Section 5.4).  Therefore an
      FNE packet MAY be marked rather than dropped.  Note that the FNE
      codepoint has been intentionally chosen so that, to legacy routers
      (which do not inspect the RE flag) an FNE packet appears to be
      Not-ECT so it will be dropped by legacy AQM algorithms.

      A network operator MUST NOT configure a router to ECN mark rather
      than drop FNE packets unless it can guarantee that FNE packets
      will be rate limited, either locally or upstream.  The ingress
      policers discussed in Section 6.1.5 would count as rate limiters
      for this purpose.

   Preferential Drop:  If a re-ECN capable router experiences very high
      load so that it has to drop arriving packets (e.g. a DoS attack),
      it MAY preferentially drop packets within the same Diffserv PHB
      using the preference order for extended ECN codepoints given in
      Table 7.  Preferential dropping can be difficult to implement on
      some hardware, but if feasible it would discriminate against
      attack traffic if done as part of the overall policing framework
      of Section 6.1.3.  If nowhere else, routers at the egress of a
      network SHOULD implement preferential drop (stronger than the MAY
      above).  For simplicity, preferences 4 & 5 MAY be merged into one
      preference level.







Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   +-------+-----+------------+-------+------------+-------------------+
   |  ECN  |  RE | Extended   | Worth | Drop Pref  |   Re-ECN meaning  |
   | field | bit | ECN        |       | (1 = drop  |                   |
   |       |     | codepoint  |       | 1st)       |                   |
   +-------+-----+------------+-------+------------+-------------------+
   |   01  |  0  | Re-Echo    | +1    | 5/4        |     Re-echoed     |
   |       |     |            |       |            |   congestion and  |
   |       |     |            |       |            |        RECT       |
   |   00  |  1  | FNE        | +1    | 4          |    Feedback not   |
   |       |     |            |       |            |    established    |
   |   11  |  0  | CE(0)      | 0     | 3          |  Re-Echo canceled |
   |       |     |            |       |            |   by congestion   |
   |       |     |            |       |            |    experienced    |
   |   01  |  1  | RECT       | 0     | 3          |   Re-ECN capable  |
   |       |     |            |       |            |     transport     |
   |   11  |  1  | CE(-1)     | -1    | 3          |     Congestion    |
   |       |     |            |       |            |    experienced    |
   |   10  |  1  | --CU--     | n/a   | 2          |  Currently Unused |
   |   10  |  0  | ---        | n/a   | 2          |   Legacy ECN use  |
   |       |     |            |       |            |        only       |
   |   00  |  0  | Not-RECT   | n/a   | 1          |        Not        |
   |       |     |            |       |            |   re-ECN-capable  |
   |       |     |            |       |            |     transport     |
   +-------+-----+------------+-------+------------+-------------------+

       Table 7: Drop Preference of EECN Codepoints (Sorted by `Worth')

      The above drop preferences are arranged to preserve packets with
      more positive worth (Section 3.4), given senders of positive
      packets must have honestly declared downstream congestion.  This
      is explained fully in Section 6 on applications, particularly when
      the application of re-ECN to protect against DDoS attacks is
      described.

5.4.  Justification for Setting the First SYN to FNE

   Congested routers may mark an FNE packet to CE(-1) (Section 5.3), and
   the initial SYN MUST be set to FNE by Re-ECT client A
   (Section 4.1.4).  So an initial SYN may be marked CE(-1) rather than
   dropped.  This seems dangerous, because the sender has not yet
   established whether the receiver is a legacy one that does not
   understand congestion marking.  It also seems to allow malicious
   senders to take advantage of ECN marking to avoid so much drop when
   launching SYN flooding attacks.  Below we explain the features of the
   protocol design that remove both these dangers.






Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   ECN-capable initial SYN with a Not-ECT server:  If the TCP server B
      is re-ECN capable, provision is made for it to feedback a possible
      congestion marked SYN in the SYN ACK (Section 4.1.4).  But if the
      TCP client A finds out from the SYN ACK that the server was not
      ECN-capable, the TCP client MUST consider the first SYN as
      congestion marked before setting itself into Not-ECT mode.
      Section 4.1.4 mandates that such a TCP client MUST also set its
      initial window to 1 segment.  In this way we remove the need to
      cautiously avoid setting the first SYN to Not-RECT.  This will
      give worse performance while deployment is patchy, but better
      performance once deployment is widespread.

   SYN flooding attacks can't exploit ECN-capability:  Malicious hosts
      may think they can use the advantage that ECN-marking gives over
      drop in launching classic SYN-flood attacks.  But Section 5.3
      mandates that a router MUST only be configured to treat packets
      with the FNE codepoint as ECN-capable if FNE packets are rate
      limited.  Introduction of the FNE codepoint was a deliberate move
      to enable transport-neutral handling of flow-start and flow state
      set-up in the IP layer where it belongs.  It then becomes possible
      to protect against flooding attacks of all forms (not just SYN
      flooding) without transport-specific inspection for things like
      the SYN flag in TCP headers.  Then, for instance, SYN flooding
      attacks using IPSec ESP encryption can also be rate limited at the
      IP layer.

   It might seem pedantic going to all this trouble to enable ECN on the
   initial packet of a flow, but it is motivated by a much wider concern
   to ensure safe congestion control will still be possible even if the
   application mix evolves to the point where the majority of flows
   consist of a single window or even a single packet.  It also allows
   denial of service attacks to be more easily isolated and prevented.

5.5.  Control and Management

5.5.1.  Negative Balance Warning

   A new ICMP message type is being considered so that a dropper can
   warn the apparent sender of a flow that it has started to sanction
   the flow.  The message would have similar semantics to the `Time
   exceeded' ICMP message type.  To ensure the sender has to invest some
   work before the network will generate such a message, a dropper
   SHOULD only send such a message for flows that have demonstrated that
   they have started correctly by establishing a positive record, but
   have later gone negative.  The threshold is up to the implementation.
   The purpose of the message is to deconfuse the cause of drops from
   other causes, such as congestion or transmission losses.  The dropper
   would send the message to the sender of the flow, not the receiver.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   If we did define this message type, it would be REQUIRED for all re-
   ECT senders to parse and understand it.  Note that a sender MUST only
   use this message to explain why losses are occurring.  A sender MUST
   NOT take this message to mean that losses have occurred that it was
   not aware of.  Otherwise, spoof messages could be sent by malicious
   sources to slow down a sender (c.f.  ICMP source quench).

   However, the need for this message type is not yet confirmed, as we
   are considering how to prevent it being used by malicious senders to
   scan for droppers and to test their threshold settings. {ToDo:
   Complete this section.}

5.5.2.  Rate Response Control

   As discussed in Section 6.1.5 the sender's access operator will be
   expected to use bulk per-user policing, but they might choose to
   introduce a per-flow policer.  In cases where operators do introduce
   per-flow policing, there may be a need for a sender to send a request
   to the ingress policer asking for permission to apply a non-default
   response to congestion (where TCP-friendly is assumed to be the
   default).  This would require the sender to know what message
   format(s) to use and to be able to discover how to address the
   policer.  The required control protocol(s) are outside the scope of
   this document, but will require definition elsewhere.

   The policer is likely to be local to the sender and inline, probably
   at the ingress interface to the internetwork.  So, discovery should
   not be hard.  A variety of control protocols already exist for some
   widely used rate-responses to congestion.  For instance DCCP
   congestion control identifiers (CCIDs [RFC4340]) fulfil this role and
   so does QoS signalling (e.g. and RSVP request for controlled load
   service is equivalent to a request for no rate response to
   congestion, but with admission control).

5.6.  IP in IP Tunnels

   For re-ECN to work correctly through IP in IP tunnels, it needs
   slightly different tunnel handling to regular ECN [RFC3168].
   Currently there is some incosistency between how the handling of IP
   in IP tunnels is defined in [RFC3168] and how it is defined in
   [RFC4301], but re-ECN would work fine with the IPsec behaviour.  This
   inconsistency is addressed in a new Internet Draft [ECN-tunnel] that
   proposes to update RFC3168 tunnel behaviour to bring it into line
   with IPsec.  Ideally, for re-ECN to work through a tunnel, the tunnel
   entry should copy both the RE flag and the ECN field from the inner
   to the outer IP header.  Then at the tunnel exit, any congestion
   marking of the outer ECN field should overwrite the inner ECN field
   (unless the inner field is Not-ECT in which case an alarm should be



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   raised).  The RE flag shouldn't change along a path, so the outer RE
   flag should be the same as the inner.  If it isn't a management alarm
   should be raised.  This behaviour is the same as the full-
   functionality variant of [RFC3168] at tunnel exit, but different at
   tunnel entry.

   If tunnels are left as they are specified in [RFC3168], whether the
   limited or full-functionality variants are used, a problem arises
   with re-ECN if a tunnel crosses an inter-domain boundary, because the
   difference between positive and negative markings will not be
   correctly accounted for.  In a limited functionality ECN tunnel, the
   flow will appear to be legacy traffic, and therefore may be wrongly
   rate limited.  In a full-functionality ECN tunnel, the result will
   depend whether the tunnel entry copies the inner RE flag to the outer
   header or the RE flag in the outer header is always cleared.  If the
   former, the flow will tend to be too positive when accounted for at
   borders.  If the latter, it will be too negative.  If the rules set
   out in [ECN-tunnel] are followed then this will not be an issue.

5.7.  Non-Issues

   The following issues might seem to cause unfavourable interactions
   with re-ECN, but we will explain why they don't:

   o  Various link layers support explicit congestion notification, such
      as Frame Relay and ATM.  Explicit congestion notification is
      proposed to be added to other link layers, such as Ethernet
      (802.3ar Ethernet congestion management) and MPLS [ECN-MPLS];

   o  Encryption and IPSec.

   In the case of congestion notification at the link layer, each
   particular link layer scheme either manages congestion on the link
   with its own link-level feedback (the usual arrangement in the cases
   of ATM and Frame Relay), or congestion notification from the link
   layer is merged into congestion notification at the IP level when the
   frame headers are decapsulated at the end of the link (the
   recommended arrangement in the Ethernet and MPLS cases).  Given the
   RE flag is not intended to change along the path, this means that
   downstream congestion will still be measureable at any point where IP
   is processed on the path by subtracting positive from negative
   markings.

   In the case of encryption, as long as the tunnel issues described in
   Section 5.6 are dealt with, payload encryption itself will not be a
   problem.  The design goal of re-ECN is to include downstream
   congestion in the IP header so that it is not necessary to bury into
   inner headers.  Obfuscation of flow identifiers is not a problem for



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   re-ECN policing elements.  Re-ECN doesn't ever require flow
   identifiers to be valid, it only requires them to be unique.  So if
   an IPSec encapsulating security payload (ESP [RFC2406]) or an
   authentication header (AH [RFC2402]) is used, the security parameters
   index (SPI) will be a sufficient flow identifier, as it is intended
   to be unique to a flow without revealing actual port numbers.

   In general, even if endpoints use some locally agreed scheme to hide
   port numbers, re-ECN policing elements can just consider the pair of
   source and destination IP addresses as the flow identifier.  Re-ECN
   encourages endpoints to at least tell the network layer that a
   sequence of packets are all part of the same flow, if indeed they
   are.  The alternative would be for the sender to make each packet
   appear to be a new flow, which would require them all to be marked
   FNE in order to avoid being treated with the bulk of malicious flows
   at the egress dropper.  Given the FNE marking is worth +1 and
   networks are likely to rate limit FNE packets, endpoints are given an
   incentive not to set FNE on each packet.  But if the sender really
   does want to hide the flow relationship between packets it can choose
   to pay the cost of multiple FNE packets, which in the long run will
   compensate for the extra memory required on network policing elements
   to process each flow.


6.  Applications

6.1.  Policing Congestion Response

6.1.1.  The Policing Problem

   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 effort 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 must become unresponsive to congestion.

   Of course, the Internet is intended to support many different
   application behaviours.  But the problem is that this freedom can be
   exercised irresponsibly.  The greater problem is that we will never
   be able to agree on where the boundary is between responsible and
   irresponsible.  Therefore re-ECN is designed to allow different
   networks to set their own view of the limit to irresponsibility, and
   to allow networks that choose a more conservative limit to push back
   against congestion caused in more liberal networks.




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   As an example of the impossibility of setting a standard for
   fairness, mandating TCP-friendliness would set the bar too high for
   unresponsive streaming media, but still some would say the bar was
   too low.  Even though all known peer-to-peer filesharing applications
   are TCP-compatible, they can cause a disproportionate amount of
   congestion, simply by using multiple flows and by transferring data
   continuously relative to other short-lived sessions.  On the other
   hand, if we swung the other way and set the bar low enough to allow
   streaming media to be unresponsive, we would also allow denial of
   service attacks, which are typically unresponsive to congestion and
   consist of multiple continuous flows.

   Applications that need (or choose) to be unresponsive to congestion
   can effectively take (some would say 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 or
   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 more areas of the Internet [RFC3714].

   While we have designed re-ECN so that networks can choose to deploy
   stringent policing, this does not imply we advocate that every
   network should introduce tight controls on those that cause
   congestion.  Re-ECN has been specifically designed to allow different
   networks to choose how conservative or liberal they wish to be with
   respect to policing congestion.  But those that choose to be
   conservative can protect themselves from the excesses that liberal
   networks allow their users.

6.1.2.  The Case Against Bottleneck Policing

   The state of the art in rate policing is the bottleneck policer,
   which is intended to be deployed at any forwarding resource that may
   become congested.  Its aim is to detect flows that cause
   significantly more local congestion than others.  Although operators
   might solve their immediate problems by deploying bottleneck
   policers, we are concerned that widespread deployment would make it
   extremely hard to evolve new application behaviours.  We believe the
   IETF should offer re-ECN as the preferred protocol on which to base
   solutions to the policing problems of operators, because it would not
   harm evolvability and, frankly, it would be far more effective (see
   later for why).

   Approaches like [XCHOKe] & [pBox] are nice approaches for rate
   policing traffic without the benefit of whole path information (such



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   as could be provided by re-ECN).  But they must be deployed at
   bottlenecks in order to work.  Unfortunately, a large proportion of
   traffic traverses at least two bottlenecks (in two access networks),
   particularly with the current traffic mix where peer-to-peer file-
   sharing is prevalent.  If ECN were deployed, we believe it would be
   likely that these bottleneck policers would be adapted to combine ECN
   congestion marking from the upstream path with local congestion
   knowledge.  But then the only useful placement for such policers
   would be close to the egress of the internetwork.

   But then, if these bottleneck policers were widely deployed (which
   would require them to be more effective than they are now), the
   Internet would find itself with one universal rate adaptation policy
   (probably TCP-friendliness) embedded throughout the network.  Given
   TCP's congestion control algorithm is already known to be hitting its
   scalability limits and new algorithms are being developed for high-
   speed congestion control, embedding TCP policing into the Internet
   would make evolution to new algorithms extremely painful.  If a
   source wanted to use a different algorithm, it would have to first
   discover then negotiate with all the policers on its path,
   particularly those in the far access network.  The IETF has already
   traveled that path with the Intserv architecture and found it
   constrains scalability [RFC2208].

   Anyway, if bottleneck policers were ever widely deployed, they would
   be likely to be bypassed by determined attackers.  They inherently
   have to police fairness per flow or per source-destination pair.
   Therefore they can easily be circumvented either by opening multiple
   flows (by varying the end-point port number); or by spoofing the
   source address but arranging with the receiver to hide the true
   return address at a higher layer.

6.1.3.  Re-ECN Incentive Framework

   The aim is to create an incentive environment that ensures optimal
   sharing of capacity despite everyone acting selfishly (including
   lying and cheating).  Of course, the mechanisms put in place for this
   can lie dormant wherever co-operation is the norm.

   Throughout this document we focus on path congestion.  But some forms
   of fairness, particularly TCP's, also depend on round trip time.  If
   TCP-fairness is required, we also propose to measure downstream path
   delay using re-feedback.  We give a simple outline of how this could
   work in Appendix F.  However, we do not expect this to be necessary,
   as researchers tend to agree that only congestion control dynamics
   need to depend on RTT, not the rate that the algorithm would converge
   on after a period of stability.




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   Figure 8 sketches the incentive framework that we will describe piece
   by piece throughout this section.  We will do a first pass in
   overview, then return to each piece in detail.  We re-use the earlier
   example of how downstream congestion is derived by subtracting
   upstream congestion from path congestion (Figure 1) but depict
   multiple trust boundaries to turn it into an internetwork.  For
   clarity, only downstream congestion is shown (the difference between
   the two earlier plots).  The graph displays downstream path
   congestion seen in a typical flow as it traverses an example path
   from sender S to receiver R, across networks N1, N2 & N4.  Everyone
   is shown using re-ECN correctly, but we intend to show why everyone
   would /choose/ to use it correctly, and honestly.

   Three main types of self-interest can be identified:

   o  Users want to transmit data across the network as fast as
      possible, paying as little as possible for the privilege.  In this
      respect, there is no distinction between senders and receivers,
      but we must be wary of potential malice by one on the other;

   o  Network operators want to maximise revenues from the resources
      they invest in.  They compete amongst themselves for the custom of
      users.

   o  Attackers (whether users or networks) want to use any opportunity
      to subvert the new re-ECN system for their own gain or to damage
      the service of their victims, whether targeted or random.
























Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


          policer
           |
           |
         S <-----N1----> <---N2---> <---N4--> R         domain
         | :                                :
       A\|/:                                :
       | V :                                :
    3% |---------+                          :
       |   :     |                          :
    2% |   :     +-----------------------+  :
       |   :    downstream congestion    |  :
    1% |   :                             |  :
       |   :                             |  :
    0% +---------------------------------+=====-->
                 0                       i  ^      resource index
                 |                       | /|\
               1.00%                  2.00% |       marking fraction
                                            |
                                         dropper

   Figure 8: Incentive Framework, showing creation of opposing pressures
     to under-declare and over-declare downstream congestion, using a
                           policer and a dropper

   Source congestion control:  We want to ensure that the sender will
      throttle its rate as downstream congestion increases.  Whatever
      the agreed congestion response (whether TCP-compatible or some
      enhanced QoS), to some extent it will always be against the
      sender's interest to comply.

   Ingress policing:  But it is in all the network operators' interests
      to encourage fair congestion response, so that their investments
      are employed to satisfy the most valuable demand.  The re-ECN
      protocol ensures packets carry the necessary information about
      their own expected downstream congestion so that N1 can deploy a
      policer at its ingress to check that S1 is complying with whatever
      congestion control it should be using (Section 6.1.5).  If N1 is
      extremely conservative it could police each flow, but it is likely
      to just police the bulk amount of congestion each customer causes
      without regard to flows, or if it is extremely liberal it need not
      police congestion control at all.  Whatever, it is always
      preferable to police traffic at the very first ingress into an
      internetwork, before non-compliant traffic can cause any damage.

   Edge egress dropper:  If the policer ensures the source has less
      right to a high rate the higher it declares downstream congestion,
      the source has a clear incentive to understate downstream
      congestion.  But, if flows of packets are understated when they



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      enter the internetwork, they will have become negative by the time
      they leave.  So, we introduce a dropper at the last network
      egress, which drops packets in flows that persistently declare
      negative downstream congestion (see Section 6.1.4 for details).

               ..competitive routing
             .'         :      '.
           .'  p e n a l:t i e s '.
          :           | :       \  :
       A  :           | :        | :
       |S <-----N1----> <---N2---> <---N4--> R         domain
       |  :           | :        | :
       |  V           | :        | :
    3% |--------+     | :        | :
       |        |     V V        V V
    2% |        +-----------------------+
       |       downstream congestion    |
    1% |          :                     |
       |          :                     |
    0% +--------------------------------+=====-->
                0                ^      i         resource index
                |               /|\     |
              1.00%              |   2.00%         marking fraction
                                 |
                             sanctions

                 Figure 9: Incentives at Inter-domain Borders

   Inter-domain traffic policing:  But next we must ask, if congestion
      arises downstream (say in N4), what is the ingress network's
      (N1's) incentive to police its customers' response?  If N1 turns a
      blind eye, its own customers benefit while other networks suffer.
      This is why all inter-domain QoS architectures (e.g. Intserv,
      Diffserv) police traffic each time it crosses a trust boundary.
      We have already shown that re-ECN gives a trustworthy measure of
      the expected downstream congestion that a flow will cause by
      subtracting negative volume from positive at any intermediate
      point on a path.  N4 (say) can use this measure to police all the
      responses to congestion of all the sources beyond its upstream
      neighbour (N2), but in bulk with one very simple passive
      mechanism, rather than per flow, as we will now explain using
      Figure 9.

   Emulating policing with inter-domain congestion penalties:  Between
      high-speed networks, we would rather avoid per-flow policing, and
      we would rather avoid holding back traffic while it is policed.
      Instead, once re-ECN has arranged headers to carry downstream
      congestion honestly, N2 can contract to pay N4 penalties in



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      proportion to a single bulk count of the congestion metrics
      crossing their mutual trust boundary (Section 6.1.6).  In this
      way, N4 puts pressure on N2 to suppress downstream congestion, for
      every flow passing through the border interface, even though they
      will all start and end in different places, and even though they
      may all be allowed different responses to congestion.  The figure
      depicts this downward pressure on N2 by the solid downward arrow
      at the egress of N2.  Then N2 has an incentive either to police
      the congestion response of its own ingress traffic (from N1) or to
      emulate policing by applying penalties to N1 in turn on the basis
      of congestion counted at their mutual boundary.  In this recursive
      way, the incentives for each flow to respond correctly to
      congestion trace back with each flow precisely to each source,
      despite the mechanism not recognising flows (see Section 6.2.2).

   Inter-domain congestion charging diversity:  Any two networks are
      free to agree any of a range of penalty regimes between themselves
      but they would only provide the right incentives if they were
      within the following reasonable constraints.  N2 should expect to
      have to pay penalties to N4 where penalties monotonically increase
      with the volume of congestion and negative penalties are not
      allowed.  For instance, they may agree an SLA with tiered
      congestion thresholds, where higher penalties apply the higher the
      threshold that is broken.  But the most obvious (and useful) form
      of penalty is where N4 levies a charge on N2 proportional to the
      volume of downstream congestion N2 dumps into N4.  In the
      explanation that follows, we assume this specific variant of
      volume charging between networks - charging proportionate to the
      volume of congestion.

      We must make clear that we are not advocating that everyone should
      use this form of contract.  We are well aware that the IETF tries
      to avoid standardising technology that depends on a particular
      business model.  And we strongly share this desire to encourage
      diversity.  But our aim is merely to show that border policing can
      at least work with this one model, then we can assume that
      operators might experiment with the metric in other models (see
      Section 6.1.6 for examples).  Of course, operators are free to
      complement this usage element of their charges with traditional
      capacity charging, and we expect they will as predicted by
      economics.

   No congestion charging to users:  Bulk congestion penalties at trust
      boundaries are passive and extremely simple, and lose none of
      their per-packet precision from one boundary to the next (unlike
      Diffserv all-address traffic conditioning agreements, which
      dissipate their effectiveness across long topologies).  But at any
      trust boundary, there is no imperative to use congestion charging.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      Traditional traffic policing can be used, if the complexity and
      cost is preferred.  In particular, at the boundary with end
      customers (e.g. between S and N1), traffic policing will most
      likely be more appropriate.  Policer complexity is less of a
      concern at the edge of the network.  And end-customers are known
      to be highly averse to the unpredictability of congestion
      charging.

   NOTE WELL:  This document neither advocates nor requires congestion
      charging for end customers and advocates but does not require
      inter-domain congestion charging.

   Competitive discipline of inter-domain traffic engineering:  With
      inter-domain congestion charging, a domain seems to have a
      perverse incentive to fake congestion; N2's profit depends on the
      difference between congestion at its ingress (its revenue) and at
      its egress (its cost).  So, overstating internal congestion seems
      to increase profit.  However, smart border routing [Smart_rtg] by
      N1 will bias its routing towards the least cost routes.  So, N2
      risks losing all its revenue to competitive routes if it
      overstates congestion (see Section 6.2.3).  In other words, if N2
      is the least congested route, its ability to raise excess profits
      is limited by the congestion on the next least congested route.
      This pressure on N2 to remain competitive is represented by the
      dotted downward arrow at the ingress to N2 in Figure 9.

   Closing the loop:  All the above elements conspire to trap everyone
      between two opposing pressures (the downward and upward arrows in
      Figure 8 & Figure 9), ensuring the downstream congestion metric
      arrives at the destination neither above nor below zero.  So, we
      have arrived back where we started in our argument.  The ingress
      edge network can rely on downstream congestion declared in the
      packet headers presented by the sender.  So it can police the
      sender's congestion response accordingly.

   Evolvability of congestion control:  We have seen that re-ECN enables
      policing at the very first ingress.  We have also seen that, as
      flows continue on their path through further networks downstream,
      re-ECN removes the need for further per-domain ingress policing of
      all the different congestion responses allowed to each different
      flow.  This is why the evolvability of re-ECN policing is so
      superior to bottleneck policing or to any policing of different
      QoS for different flows.  Even if all access networks choose to
      conservatively police congestion per flow, each will want to
      compete with the others to allow new responses to congestion for
      new types of application.  With re-ECN, each can introduce new
      controls independently, without coordinating with other networks
      and without having to standardise anything.  But, as we have just



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 43]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      seen, by making inter-domain penalties proportionate to bulk
      downtream congestion, downstream networks can be agnostic to the
      specific congestion response for each flow, but they can still
      apply more penalty the more liberal the ingress access network has
      been in the response to congestion it allowed for each flow.

6.1.3.1.  The Case against Classic Feedback

   A system that produces an optimal outcome as a result of everyone's
   selfish actions is extremely powerful.  Especially one that enables
   evolvability of congestion control.  But why do we have to change to
   re-ECN to achieve it?  Can't classic congestion feedback (as used
   already by standard ECN) be arranged to provide similar incentives
   and similar evolvability?  Superficially it can.  Kelly's seminal
   work showed how we can allow everyone the freedom to evolve whatever
   congestion control behaviour is in their application's best interest
   but still optimise the whole system of networks and users by placing
   a price on congestion to ensure responsible use of this
   freedom [Evol_cc]).  Kelly used ECN with its classic congestion
   feedback model as the mechanism to convey congestion price
   information.  The mechanism could be thought of as volume charging;
   except only the volume of packets marked with congestion experienced
   (CE) was counted.

   However, below we explain why relying on classic feedback /required/
   congestion charging to be used, while re-ECN achieves the same
   powerful outcome (given it is built on Kelly's foundations), but does
   not /require/ congestion charging.  In brief, the problem with
   classic feedback is that the incentives have to trace the indirect
   path back to the sender---the long way round the feedback loop.  For
   example, if classic feedback were used in Figure 8, N2 would have had
   to influence N1 via all of N4, R & S rather than directly.

   Inability to agree what is happening downstream:  In order to police
      its upstream neighbour's congestion response, the neighbours
      should be able to agree on the congestion to be responded to.
      Whatever the feedback regime, as packets change hands at each
      trust boundary, any path metrics they carry are verifiable by both
      neighbours.  But, with a classic path metric, they can only agree
      on the /upstream/ path congestion.

   Inaccessible back-channel:  The network needs a whole-path congestion
      metric if it wants to control the source.  Classically, whole path
      congestion emerges at the destination, to be fed back from
      receiver to sender in a back-channel.  But, in any data network,
      back-channels need not be visible to relays, as they are
      essentially communications between the end-points.  They may be
      encrypted, asymmetrically routed or simply omitted, so no network



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 44]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      element can reliably intercept them.  The congestion charging
      literature solves this problem by charging the receiver and
      assuming this will cause the receiver to refer the charges to the
      sender.  But, of course, this creates unintended side-effects...

   `Receiver pays' unacceptable:  In connectionless datagram networks,
      receivers and receiving networks cannot prevent reception from
      malicious senders, so `receiver pays' opens them to `denial of
      funds' attacks.

   End-user congestion charging unacceptable:  Even if 'denial of funds'
      were not a problem, we know that end-users are highly averse to
      the unpredictability of congestion charging and anyway, we want to
      avoid restricting network operators to just one retail tariff.
      But with classic feedback only an upstream metric is available, so
      we cannot avoid having to wrap the `receiver pays' money flow
      around the feedback loop, necessarily forcing end-users to be
      subjected to congestion charging.

   To summarise so far, with classic feedback, policing congestion
   response without losing evolvability /requires/ congestion charging
   of end-users and a `receiver pays' model, whereas, with re-ECN, it is
   still possible to influence incentives using congestion charging but
   using the safer `sender pays' model.  However, congestion charging is
   only likely to be appropriate between domains.  So, without losing
   evolvability, re-ECN enables technical policing mechanisms that are
   more appropriate for end users than congestion pricing.

   We now take a second pass over the incentive framework, filling in
   the detail.

6.1.4.  Egress Dropper

   As traffic leaves the last network before the receiver (domain N4 in
   Figure 8), the fraction of positive octets in a flow should match the
   fraction of negative octets introduced by congestion marking, leaving
   a balance of zero.  If it is less (a negative flow), it implies that
   the source is understating path congestion (which will reduce the
   penalties that N2 owes N4).

   If flows are positive, N4 need take no action---this simply means its
   upstream neighbour is paying more penalties than it needs to, and the
   source is going slower than it needs to.  But, to protect itself
   against persistently negative flows, N4 will need to install a
   dropper at its egress.  Appendix E gives a suggested algorithm for
   this dropper.  There is no intention that the dropper algorithm needs
   to be standardised, it is merely provided to show that an efficient,
   robust algorithm is possible.  But whatever algorithm is used must



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 45]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   meet the criteria below:

   o  It SHOULD introduce minimal false positives for honest flows;

   o  It SHOULD quickly detect and sanction dishonest flows (minimal
      false negatives);

   o  It MUST be invulnerable to state exhaustion attacks from malicious
      sources.  For instance, if the dropper uses flow-state, it should
      not be possible for a source to send numerous packets, each with a
      different flow ID, to force the dropper to exhaust its memory
      capacity;

   o  It MUST introduce sufficient loss in goodput so that malicious
      sources cannot play off losses in the egress dropper against
      higher allowed throughput.  Salvatori [CLoop_pol] describes this
      attack, which involves the source understating path congestion
      then inserting forward error correction (FEC) packets to
      compensate expected losses.

   Note that the dropper operates on flows but we would like it not to
   require per-flow state.  This is why we have been careful to ensure
   that all flows MUST start with a packet marked with the FNE
   codepoint.  If a flow does not start with the FNE codepoint, a
   dropper is likely to treat it unfavourably.  This risk makes it worth
   setting the FNE codepoint at the start of a flow, even though there
   is a cost to the sender of setting FNE (positive `worth').  Indeed,
   with the FNE codepoint, the rate at which a sender can generate new
   flows can be limited (Appendix G).  In this respect, the FNE
   codepoint works like Handley's state set-up bit [Steps_DoS].

   Appendix E also gives an example dropper implementation that
   aggregates flow state.  Dropper algorithms will often maintain a
   moving average across flows of the fraction of RE blanked packets.
   When maintaining an average across flows, a dropper SHOULD only allow
   flows into the average if they start with FNE, but it SHOULD NOT
   include packets with the FNE codepoint set in the average.  A sender
   sets the FNE codepoint when it does not have the benefit of feedback
   from the receiver.  So, counting packets with FNE cleared would be
   likely to make the average unnecessarily positive, providing headroom
   (or should we say footroom?) for dishonest (negative) traffic.

   If the dropper detects a persistently negative flow, it SHOULD drop
   sufficient negative and neutral packets to force the flow to not be
   negative.  Drops SHOULD be focused on just sufficient packets in
   misbehaving flows to remove the negative bias while doing minimal
   extra harm.




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 46]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


6.1.5.  Policing

   Access operators who wish to limit the congeston that a sender is
   able to cause can deploy policers at the very first ingress to the
   internetwork.  Re-ECN has been designed to avoid the need for
   bottleneck policing so that we can avoid a future where a single rate
   adaptation policy is embedded throughout the network.  Instead, re-
   ECN allows the particular rate adaptation policy to be solely agreed
   bilaterally between the sender and its ingress access provider
   (Section 5.5.2 discusses possible ways to signal between them), which
   allows congestion control to be policed, but maintains its
   evolvability, requiring only a single, local box to be updated.

   Appendix G gives examples of per-user policing algorithms.  But there
   is no implication that these algorithms are to be standardised, or
   that they are ideal.  The ingress rate policer is the part of the re-
   ECN incentive framework that is intended to be the most flexible.
   Once endpoint protocol handlers for re-ECN and egress droppers are in
   place, operators can choose exactly which congestion response they
   want to police, and whether they want to do it per user, per flow or
   not at all.

   The re-ECN protocol allows these ingress policers to easily perform
   bulk per-user policing (Appendix G.1).  This is likely to provide
   sufficient incentive to the user to correctly respond to congestion
   without needing the policing function to be overly complex.  If an
   access operator chose they could use per-flow policing according to
   the widely adopted TCP rate adaptation ( Appendix G.2) or other
   alternatives, however this would introduce extra complexity to the
   system.

   If a per-flow rate policer is used, it should use path (not
   downstream) congestion as the relevant metric, which is represented
   by the fraction of octets in packets with positive (Re-Echo and FNE)
   and canceled (CE(0)) markings.  Of course, re-ECN provides all the
   information a policer needs directly in the packets being policed.
   So, even policing TCP's AIMD algorithm is relatively straightforward
   (Appendix G.2).

   Note that we have included canceled packets in the measure of path
   congestion.  Canceled packets arise when the sender re-echoes earlier
   congestion, but then this Re-Echo packet just happens to be
   congestion marked itself.  One would not normally expect many
   canceled packets at the first ingress because one would not normally
   expect much congestion marking to have been necessary that soon in
   the path.  However, a home network or campus network may well sit
   between the sending endpoint and the ingress policer, so some
   congestion may occur upstream of the policer.  And if congestion does



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 47]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   occur upstream, some canceled packets should be visible, and should
   be taken into account in the measure of path congestion.

   But a much more important reason for including canceled packets in
   the measure of path congestion at an ingress policer is that a sender
   might otherwise subvert the protocol by sending canceled packets
   instead of neutral (RECT) packets.  Like neutral, canceled packets
   are worth zero, so the sender knows they won't be counted against any
   quota it might have been allowed.  But unlike neutral packets,
   canceled packets are immune to congestion marking, because they have
   already been congestion marked.  So, it is both correct and useful
   that canceled packets should be included in a policer's measure of
   path congestion, as this removes the incentive the sender would
   otherwise have to mark more packets as canceled than it should.

   An ingress policer should also ensure that flows are not already
   negative when they enter the access network.  As with canceled
   packets, the presence of negative packets will typically be unusual.
   Therefore it will be easy to detect negative flows at the ingress by
   just detecting negative packets then monitoring the flow they belong
   to.

   Of course, even if the sender does operate its own network, it may
   arrange not to congestion mark traffic.  Whether the sender does this
   or not is of no concern to anyone else except the sender.  Such a
   sender will not be policed against its own network's contribution to
   congestion, but the only resulting problem would be overload in the
   sender's own network.

   Finally, we must not forget that an easy way to circumvent re-ECN's
   defences is for the source to turn off re-ECN support, by setting the
   Not-RECT codepoint, implying legacy traffic.  Therefore an ingress
   policer should put a general rate-limit on Not-RECT traffic, which
   SHOULD be lax during early, patchy deployment, but will have to
   become stricter as deployment widens.  Similarly, flows starting
   without an FNE packet can be confined by a strict rate-limit used for
   the remainder of flows that haven't proved they are well-behaved by
   starting correctly (therefore they need not consume any flow state---
   they are just confined to the `misbehaving' bin if they carry an
   unrecognised flow ID).

6.1.6.  Inter-domain Policing

   One of the main design goals of re-ECN is for border security
   mechanisms to be as simple as possible, otherwise they will become
   the pinch-points that limit scalability of the whole internetwork.
   We want to avoid per-flow processing at borders and to keep to
   passive mechanisms that can monitor traffic in parallel to



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 48]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   forwarding, rather than having to filter traffic inline---in series
   with forwarding.  Such passive, off-line mechanisms are essential for
   future high-speed all-optical border interconnection where packets
   cannot be buffered while they are checked for policy compliance.

   So far, we have been able to keep the border mechanisms simple,
   despite having had to harden them against some subtle attacks on the
   re-ECN design.  The mechanisms are still passive and avoid per-flow
   processing.

   The basic accounting mechanism at each border interface simply
   involves accumulating the volume of packets with positive worth (Re-
   Echo and FNE), and subtracting the volume of those with negative
   worth: CE(-1).  Even though this mechanism takes no regard of flows,
   over an accounting period (say a month) this subtraction will account
   for the downstream congestion caused by all the flows traversing the
   interface, wherever they come from, and wherever they go to.  The two
   networks can agree to use this metric however they wish to determine
   some congestion-related penalty against the upstream network.
   Although the algorithm could hardly be simpler, it is spelled out
   using pseudo-code in Appendix H.1.

   Various attempts to subvert the re-ECN design have been made.  In all
   cases their root cause is persistently negative flows.  But, after
   describing these attacks we will show that we don't actually have to
   get rid of all persistently negative flows in order to thwart the
   attacks.

   In honest flows, downstream congestion is measured as positive minus
   negative volume.  So if all flows are honest (i.e. not persistently
   negative), adding all positive volume and all negative volume without
   regard to flows will give an aggregate measure of downstream
   congestion.  But such simple aggregation is only possible if no flows
   are persistently negative.  Unless persistently negative flows are
   completely removed, they will reduce the aggregate measure of
   congestion.  The aggregate may still be positive overall, but not as
   positive as it would have been had the negative flows been removed.

   In Section 6.1.4 we discussed how to sanction traffic to remove, or
   at least to identify, persistently negative flows.  But, even if the
   sanction for negative traffic is to discard it, unless it is
   discarded at the exact point it goes negative, it will wrongly
   subtract from aggregate downstream congestion, at least at any
   borders it crosses after it has gone negative but before it is
   discarded.

   We rely on sanctions to deter dishonest understatement of congestion.
   But even the ultimate sanction of discard can only be effective if



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 49]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   the sender is bothered about the data getting through to its
   destination.  A number of attacks have been identified where a sender
   gains from sending dummy traffic or it can attack someone or
   something using dummy traffic even though it isn't communicating any
   information to anyone:

   o  A host can send traffic with no positive markings towards its
      intended destination, aiming to transmit as much traffic as any
      dropper will allow [Bauer06].  It may add forward error correction
      (FEC) to repair as much drop as it experiences.

   o  A host can send dummy traffic into the network with no positive
      markings and with no intention of communicating with anyone, but
      merely to cause higher levels of congestion for others who do want
      to communicate (DoS).  So, to ride over the extra congestion,
      everyone else has to spend more of whatever rights to cause
      congestion they have been allowed.

   o  A network can simply create its own dummy traffic to congest
      another network, perhaps causing it to lose business at no cost to
      the attacking network.  This is a form of denial of service
      perpetrated by one network on another.  The preferential drop
      measures in Section 5.3 provide crude protection against such
      attacks, but we are not overly worried about more accurate
      prevention measures, because it is already possible for networks
      to DoS other networks on the general Internet, but they generally
      don't because of the grave consequences of being found out.  We
      are only concerned if re-ECN increases the motivation for such an
      attack, as in the next example.

   o  A network can just generate negative traffic and send it over its
      border with a neighbour to reduce the overall penalties that it
      should pay to that neighbour.  It could even initialise the TTL so
      it expired shortly after entering the neighbouring network,
      reducing the chance of detection further downstream.  This attack
      need not be motivated by a desire to deny service and indeed need
      not cause denial of service.  A network's main motivator would
      most likely be to reduce the penalties it pays to a neighbour.
      But, the prospect of financial gain might tempt the network into
      mounting a DoS attack on the other network as well, given the gain
      would offset some of the risk of being detected.

   The first step towards a solution to all these problems with negative
   flows is to be able to estimate the contribution they make to
   downstream congestion at a border and to correct the measure
   accordingly.  Although ideally we want to remove negative flows
   themselves, perhaps surprisingly, the most effective first step is to
   cancel out the polluting effect negative flows have on the measure of



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 50]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   downstream congestion at a border.  It is more important to get an
   unbiased estimate of their effect, than to try to remove them all.  A
   suggested algorithm to give an unbiased estimate of the contribution
   from negative flows to the downstream congestion measure is given in
   Appendix H.2.

   Although making an accurate assessment of the contribution from
   negative flows may not be easy, just the single step of neutralising
   their polluting effect on congestion metrics removes all the gains
   networks could otherwise make from mounting dummy traffic attacks on
   each other.  This puts all networks on the same side (only with
   respect to negative flows of course), rather than being pitched
   against each other.  The network where this flow goes negative as
   well as all the networks downstream lose out from not being
   reimbursed for any congestion this flow causes.  So they all have an
   interest in getting rid of these negative flows.  Networks forwarding
   a flow before it goes negative aren't strictly on the same side, but
   they are disinterested bystanders---they don't care that the flow
   goes negative downstream, but at least they can't actively gain from
   making it go negative.  The problem becomes localised so that once a
   flow goes negative, all the networks from where it happens and beyond
   downstream each have a small problem, each can detect it has a
   problem and each can get rid of the problem if it chooses to.  But
   negative flows can no longer be used for any new attacks.

   Once an unbiased estimate of the effect of negative flows can be
   made, the problem reduces to detecting and preferably removing flows
   that have gone negative as soon as possible.  But importantly,
   complete eradication of negative flows is no longer critical---best
   endeavours will be sufficient.

   For instance, let us consider the case where a source sends traffic
   with no positive markings at all, hoping to at least get as much
   traffic delivered as network-based droppers will allow.  The flow is
   likely to go at least slightly negative in the first network on the
   path (N1 if we use the example network layout in Figure 9).  If all
   networks use the algorithm in Appendix H.2 to inflate penalties at
   their border with an upstream network, they will remove the effect of
   negative flows.  So, for instance, N2 will not be paying a penalty to
   N1 for this flow.  Further, because the flow contributes no positive
   markings at all, a dropper at the egress will completely remove it.

   The remaining problem is that every network is carrying a flow that
   is causing congestion to others but not being held to account for the
   congestion it is causing.  Whenever the fail-safe border algorithm
   (Section 6.1.7) or the border algorithm to compensate for negative
   flows (Appendix H.2) detects a negative flow, it can instantiate a
   focused dropper for that flow locally.  It may be some time before



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 51]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   the flow is detected, but the more strongly negative the flow is, the
   more quickly it will be detected by the fail-safe algorithm.  But, in
   the meantime, it will not be distorting border incentives.  Until it
   is detected, if it contributes to drop anywhere, its packets will
   tend to be dropped before others if routers use the preferential drop
   rules in Section 5.3, which discriminate against non-positive
   packets.  All networks below the point where a flow goes negative
   (N1, N2 and N4 in this case) have an incentive to remove this flow,
   but the router where it first goes negative (in N1) can of course
   remove the problem for everyone downstream.

   In the case of DDoS attacks, Section 6.2.1 describes how re-ECN
   mitigates their force.

6.1.7.  Inter-domain Fail-safes

   The mechanisms described so far create incentives for rational
   network operators to behave.  That is, one operator aims to make
   another behave responsibly by applying penalties and expects a
   rational response (i.e. one that trades off costs against benefits).
   It is usually reasonable to assume that other network operators will
   behave rationally (policy routing can avoid those that might not).
   But this approach does not protect against the misconfigurations and
   accidents of other operators.

   Therefore, we propose the following two mechanisms at a network's
   borders to provide "defence in depth".  Both are similar:

   Highly positive flows:  A small sample of positive packets should be
      picked randomly as they cross a border interface.  Then subsequent
      packets matching the same source and destination address and DSCP
      should be monitored.  If the fraction of positive marking is well
      above a threshold (to be determined by operational practice), a
      management alarm SHOULD be raised, and the flow MAY be
      automatically subject to focused drop.

   Persistently negative flows:  A small sample of congestion marked
      (negative) packets should be picked randomly as they cross a
      border interface.  Then subsequent packets matching the same
      source and destination address and DSCP should be monitored.  If
      the balance of positive minus negative markings is persistently
      negative, a management alarm SHOULD be raised, and the flow MAY be
      automatically subject to focused drop.

   Both these mechanisms rely on the fact that highly positive (or
   negative) flows will appear more quickly in the sample by selecting
   randomly solely from positive (or negative) packets.




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 52]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


6.1.8.  Simulations

   Simulations of policer and dropper performance done for the multi-bit
   version of re-feedback have been included in section 5 "Dropper
   Performance" of [Re-fb].  Simulations of policer and dropper for the
   re-ECN version described in this document are work in progress.

6.2.  Other Applications

6.2.1.  DDoS Mitigation

   A flooding attack is inherently about congestion of a resource.
   Because re-ECN ensures the sources causing network congestion
   experience the cost of their own actions, it acts as a first line of
   defence against DDoS.  As load focuses on a victim, upstream queues
   grow, requiring honest sources to pre-load packets with a higher
   fraction of positive packets.  Once downstream routers are so
   congested that they are dropping traffic, they will be CE marking the
   traffic they do forward 100%.  Honest sources will therefore be
   sending Re-Echo 100% (and therefore being severely rate-limited at
   the ingress).

   Senders under malicious control can either do the same as honest
   sources, and be rate-limited at ingress, or they can understate
   congestion by sending more neutral RECT packets than they should.  If
   sources understate congestion (i.e. do not re-echo sufficient
   positive packets) and the preferential drop ranking is implemented on
   routers (Section 5.3), these routers will preserve positive traffic
   until last.  So, the neutral traffic from malicious sources will all
   be automatically dropped first.  Either way, the malicious sources
   cannot send more than honest sources.

   Further, hosts under malicious control will tend to be re-used for
   many different attacks.  They will therefore build up a long term
   history of causing congestion.  Therefore, as long as the population
   of potentially compromisable hosts around the Internet is limited,
   the per-user policing algorithms in Appendix G.1 will gradually
   throttle down zombies and other launchpads for attacks.  Therefore,
   widespread deployment of re-ECN could considerably dampen the force
   of DDoS.  Certainly, zombie armies could hold their fire for long
   enough to be able to build up enough credit in the per-user policers
   to launch an attack.  But they would then still be limited to no more
   throughput than other, honest users.

   Inter-domain traffic policing (see Section 6.1.6)ensures that any
   network that harbours compromised `zombie' hosts will have to bear
   the cost of the congestion caused by traffic from zombies in
   downstream networks.  Such networks will be incentivised to deploy



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 53]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   per-user policers that rate-limit hosts that are unresponsive to
   congestion so they can only send very slowly into congested paths.
   As well as protecting other networks, the extremely poor performance
   at any sign of congestion will incentivise the zombie's owner to
   clean it up.  However, the host should behave normally when using
   uncongested paths.

   Uniquely, re-ECN handles DDoS traffic without relying on the validity
   of identifiers in packets.  Certainly the egress dropper relies on
   uniqueness of flow identifiers, but not their validity.  So if a
   source spoofs another address, re-ECN works just as well, as long as
   the attacker cannot imitate all the flow identifiers of another
   active flow passing through the same dropper (see Section 6.3).
   Similarly, the ingress policer relies on uniqueness of flow IDs, not
   their validity.  Because a new flow will only be allowed any rate at
   all if it starts with FNE, and the more FNE packets there are
   starting new flows, the more they will be limited.  Essentially a re-
   ECN policer limits the bulk of all congestion entering the network
   through a physical interface; limiting the congestion caused by each
   flow is merely an optional extra.

6.2.2.  End-to-end QoS

   {ToDo: (Section 3.3.2 of [Re-fb] entitled `Edge QoS' gives an outline
   of the text that will be added here).}

6.2.3.  Traffic Engineering

   {ToDo: }

6.2.4.  Inter-Provider Service Monitoring

   {ToDo: }

6.3.  Limitations

   The known limitations of the re-ECN approach are:

   o  We still cannot defend against the attack described in Section 10
      where a malicious source sends negative traffic through the same
      egress dropper as another flow and imitates its flow identifiers,
      allowing a malicious source to cause an innocent flow to
      experience heavy drop.

   o  Re-feedback for TTL (re-TTL) would also be desirable at the same
      time as re-ECN.  Unfortunately this requires a further standards
      action for the mechanisms briefly described in Appendix F




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 54]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   o  Traffic must be ECN-capable for re-ECN to be effective.  The only
      defence against malicious users who turn off ECN capbility is that
      networks are expected to rate limit Not-ECT traffic and to apply
      higher drop preference to it during congestion.  Although these
      are blunt instruments, they at least represent a feasible scenario
      for the future Internet where Not-ECT traffic co-exists with re-
      ECN traffic, but as a severely hobbled under-class.  We recommend
      (Section 7.1) that while accommodating a smooth initial transition
      to re-ECN, policing policies should gradually be tightened to rate
      limit Not-ECT traffic more strictly in the longer term.

   o  When checking whether a flow is balancing positive markings with
      congestion marking, re-ECN can only account for congestion
      marking, not drops.  So, whenever a sender experiences drop, it
      does not have to re-echo the congestion event.  Nonetheless, it is
      hardly any advantage to be able to send faster than other flows
      only if your traffic is dropped and the other traffic isn't.

   o  We are considering the issue of whether it would be useful to
      truncate rather than drop packets that appear to be malicious, so
      that the feedback loop is not broken but useful data can be
      removed.


7.  Incremental Deployment

7.1.  Incremental Deployment Features

   The design of the re-ECN protocol started from the fact that the
   current ECN marking behaviour of routers was sufficient and that re-
   feedback could be introduced around these routers by changing the
   sender behaviour but not the routers.  Otherwise, if we had required
   routers to be changed, the chance of encountering a path that had
   every router upgraded would be vanishly small during early
   deployment, giving no incentive to start deployment.  Also, as there
   is no new forwarding behaviour, routers and hosts do not have to
   signal or negotiate anything.

   However, networks that choose to protect themselves using re-ECN do
   have to add new security functions at their trust boundaries with
   others.  They distinguish legacy traffic by its ECN field.  Traffic
   from Not-ECT transports is distinguishable by its Not-RECT marking.
   Traffic from legacy ECN transports is distinguished from re-ECN by
   which of ECT(0) or ECT(1) is used.  We chose to use ECT(1) for re-ECN
   traffic deliberately.  Existing ECN sources set ECT(0) on either 50%
   (the nonce) or 100% (the default) of packets, whereas re-ECN does not
   use ECT(0) at all.  We can use this distinguishing feature of legacy
   ECN traffic to separate it out for different treatment at the various



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 55]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   border security functions: egress dropping, ingress policing and
   border policing.

   The general principle we adopt is that an egress dropper will not
   drop any legacy traffic, but ingress and border policers will limit
   the bulk rate of legacy traffic that can enter each network.  Then,
   during early re-ECN deployment, operators can set very permissive (or
   non-existent) rate-limits on legacy traffic, but once re-ECN
   implementations are generally available, legacy traffic can be rate-
   limited increasingly harshly.  Ultimately, an operator might choose
   to block all legacy traffic entering its network, or at least only
   allow through a trickle.

   Then, as the limits are 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.

   The following list of minor changes, brings together all the points
   where Re-ECN semantics for use of the two-bit ECN field are different
   compared to RFC3168:

   o  A re-ECN sender sets ECT(1) by default, whereas an RFC3168 sender
      sets ECT(0) by default (Section 3.3);

   o  No provision is necessary for a re-ECN capable source transport to
      use the ECN nonce (Section 4.1.2.1);

   o  Routers MAY preferentially drop different extended ECN codepoints
      (Section 5.3);

   o  Packets carrying the feedback not established (FNE) codepoint MAY
      optionally be marked rather than dropped by routers, even though
      their ECN field is Not-ECT (with the important caveat in
      Section 5.3);

   o  Packets may be dropped by policing nodes because of apparent
      misbehaviour, not just because of congestion (Section 6);

   o  Tunnel entry behaviour is still to be defined, but may have to be
      different from RFC3168 (Section 5.6).

   None of these changes REQUIRE any modifications to routers.  Also
   none of these changes affect anything about end to end congestion
   control; they are all to do with allowing networks to police that end
   to end congestion control is well-behaved.





Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 56]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


7.2.  Incremental Deployment Incentives

   It would only be worth standardising the re-ECN protocol if there
   existed a coherent story for how it might be incrementally deployed.
   In order for it to have a chance of deployment, everyone who needs to
   act must have a strong incentive to act, and the incentives must
   arise in the order that deployment would have to happen.  Re-ECN
   works around unmodified ECN routers, but we can't just discuss why
   and how re-ECN deployment might build on ECN deployment, because
   there is precious little to build on in the first place.  Instead, we
   aim to show that re-ECN deployment could carry ECN with it.  We focus
   on commercial deployment incentives, although some of the arguments
   apply equally to academic or government sectors.

   ECN deployment:

      ECN is largely implemented in commercial routers, but generally
      not as a supported feature, and it has largely not been deployed
      by commercial network operators.  It has been released in many
      Unix-based operating systems, but not in proprietary OSs like
      Windows or those in many mobile devices.  For detailed deployment
      status, see [ECN-Deploy].  We believe the reason ECN deployment
      has not happened is twofold:

      *  ECN requires changes to both routers and hosts.  If someone
         wanted to sell the improvement that ECN offers, they would have
         to co-ordinate deployment of their product with others.  An ECN
         server only gives any improvement on an ECN network.  An ECN
         network only gives any improvement if used by ECN devices.
         Deployment that requires co-ordination adds cost and delay and
         tends to dilute any competitive advantage that might be gained.

      *  ECN `only' gives a performance improvement.  Making a product a
         bit faster (whether the product is a device or a network),
         isn't usually a sufficient selling point to be worth the cost
         of co-ordinating across the industry to deploy it.  Network
         operators tend to avoid re-configuring a working network unless
         launching a new product.

   ECN and re-ECN for Edge-to-edge Assured QoS:

      We believe the proposal to provide assured QoS sessions using a
      form of ECN called pre-congestion notification (PCN) [PCN-arch] is
      most likely to break the deadlock in ECN deployment first.  It
      only requires edge-to-edge deployment so it does not require
      endpoint support.  It can be deployed in a single network, then
      grow incrementally to interconnected networks.  And it provides a
      different `product' (internetworked assured QoS), rather than



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 57]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      merely making an existing product a bit faster.

      Not only could this assured QoS application kick-start ECN
      deployment, it could also carry re-ECN deployment with it; because
      re-ECN can enable the assured QoS region to expand to a large
      internetwork where neighbouring networks do not trust each other.
      [Re-PCN] argues that re-ECN security should be built in to the QoS
      system from the start, explaining why and how.

      If ECN and re-ECN were deployed edge-to-edge for assured QoS,
      operators would gain valuable experience.  They would also clear
      away many technical obstacles such as firewall configurations that
      block all but the legacy settings of the ECN field and the RE
      flag.

   ECN in Access Networks:

      The next obstacle to ECN deployment would be extension to access
      and backhaul networks, where considerable link layer differences
      makes implementation non-trivial, particularly on congested
      wireless links.  ECN and re-ECN work fine during partial
      deployment, but they will not be very useful if the most congested
      elements in networks are the last to support them.  Access network
      support is one of the weakest parts of this deployment story.  All
      we can hope is that, once the benefits of ECN are better
      understood by operators, they will push for the necessary link
      layer implementations as deployment proceeds.

   Policing Unresponsive Flows:

      Re-ECN allows a network to offer differentiated quality of service
      as explained in Section 6.2.2.  But we do not believe this will
      motivate initial deployment of re-ECN, because the industry is
      already set on alternative ways of doing QoS.  Despite being much
      more complicated and expensive, the alternative approaches are
      here and now.

      But re-ECN is critical to QoS deployment in another respect.  It
      can be used to prevent applications from taking whatever bandwidth
      they choose without asking.

      Currently, applications that remain resolute in their lack of
      response to congestion are rewarded by other TCP applications.  In
      other words, TCP is naively friendly, in that it reduces its rate
      in response to congestion whether it is competing with friends
      (other TCPs) or with enemies (unresponsive applications).





Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 58]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      Therefore, those network owners that want to sell QoS will be keen
      to ensure that their users can't help themselves to QoS for free.
      Given the very large revenues at stake, we believe effective
      policing of congestion response will become highly sought after by
      network owners.

      But this does not necessarily argue for re-ECN deployment.
      Network owners might choose to deploy bottleneck policers rather
      than re-ECN-based policing.  However, under Related Work
      (Section 9) we argue that bottleneck policers are inherently
      vulnerable to circumvention.

      Therefore we believe there will be a strong demand from network
      owners for re-ECN deployment so they can police flows that do not
      ask to be unresponsive to congestion, in order to protect their
      revenues from flows that do ask (QoS).  In particular, we suspect
      that the operators of cellular networks will want to prevent VoIP
      and video applications being used freely on their networks as a
      more open market develops in GPRS and 3G devices.

      Initial deployments are likely to be isolated to single cellular
      networks.  Cellular operators would first place requirements on
      device manufacturers to include re-ECN in the standards for mobile
      devices.  In parallel, they would put out tenders for ingress and
      egress policers.  Then, after a while they would start to tighten
      rate limits on Not-ECT traffic from non-standard devices and they
      would start policing whatever non-accredited applications people
      might install on mobile devices with re-ECN support in the
      operating system.  This would force even independent mobile device
      manufacturers to provide re-ECN support.  Early standardisation
      across the cellular operators is likely, including interconnection
      agreements with penalties for excess downstream congestion.

      We suspect some fixed broadband networks (whether cable or DSL)
      would follow a similar path.  However, we also believe that larger
      parts of the fixed Internet would not choose to police on a per-
      flow basis.  Some might choose to police congestion on a per-user
      basis in order to manage heavy peer-to-peer file-sharing, but it
      seems likely that a sizeable majority would not deploy any form of
      policing.

      This hybrid situation begs the question, "How does re-ECN work for
      networks that choose to using policing if they connect with others
      that don't?"  Traffic from non-ECN capable sources will arrive
      from other networks and cause congestion within the policed, ECN-
      capable networks.  So networks that chose to police congestion
      would rate-limit Not-ECT traffic throughout their network,
      particularly at their borders.  They would probably also set



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 59]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      higher usage prices in their interconnection contracts for
      incoming Not-ECT and Not-RECT traffic.  We assume that
      interconnection contracts between networks in the same tier will
      include congestion penalties before contracts with provider
      backbones do.

      A hybrid situation could remain for all time.  As was explained in
      the introduction, we believe in healthy competition between
      policing and not policing, with no imperative to convert the whole
      world to the religion of policing.  Networks that chose not to
      deploy egress droppers would leave themselves open to being
      congested by senders in other networks.  But that would be their
      choice.

      The important aspect of the egress dropper though is that it most
      protects the network that deploys it.  If a network does not
      deploy an egress dropper, sources sending into it from other
      networks will be able to understate the congestion they are
      causing.  Whereas, if a network deploys an egress dropper, it can
      know how much congestion other networks are dumping into it, and
      apply penalties or charges accordingly.  So, whether or not a
      network polices its own sources at ingress, it is in its interests
      to deploy an egress dropper.

   Host support:

      In the above deployment scenario, host operating system support
      for re-ECN came about through the cellular operators demanding it
      in device standards (i.e. 3GPP).  Of course, increasingly, mobile
      devices are being built to support multiple wireless technologies.
      So, if re-ECN were stipulated for cellular devices, it would
      automatically appear in those devices connected to the wireless
      fringes of fixed networks if they coupled cellular with WiFi or
      Bluetooth technology, for instance.  Also, once implemented in the
      operating system of one mobile device, it would tend to be found
      in other devices using the same family of operating system.

      Therefore, whether or not a fixed network deployed ECN, or
      deployed re-ECN policers and droppers, many of its hosts might
      well be using re-ECN over it.  Indeed, they would be at an
      advantage when communicating with hosts across Re-ECN policed
      networks that rate limited Not-RECT traffic.

   Other possible scenarios:







Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 60]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      The above is thankfully not the only plausible scenario we can
      think of.  One of the many clubs of operators that meet regularly
      around the world might decide to act together to persuade a major
      operating system manufacturer to implement re-ECN.  And they may
      agree between them on an interconnection model that includes
      congestion penalties.

      Re-ECN provides an interesting opportunity for device
      manufacturers as well as network operators.  Policers can be
      configured loosely when first deployed.  Then as re-ECN take-up
      increases, they can be tightened up, so that a network with re-ECN
      deployed can gradually squeeze down the service provided to legacy
      devices that have not upgraded to re-ECN.  Many device vendors
      rely on replacement sales.  And operating system companies rely
      heavily on new release sales.  Also support services would like to
      be able to force stragglers to upgrade.  So, the ability to
      throttle service to legacy operating systems is quite valuable.

      Also, policing unresponsive sources may not be the only or even
      the first application that drives deployment.  It may be policing
      causes of heavy congestion (e.g. peer-to-peer file-sharing).  Or
      it may be mitigation of denial of service.  Or we may be wrong in
      thinking simpler QoS will not be the initial motivation for re-ECN
      deployment.  Indeed, the combined pressure for all these may be
      the motivator, but it seems optimistic to expect such a level of
      joined-up thinking from today's communications industry.  We
      believe a single application alone must be a sufficient motivator.

      In short, everyone gains from adding accountability to TCP/IP,
      except the selfish or malicious.  So, deployment incentives tend
      to be strong.


8.  Architectural Rationale

   In the Internet's technical community, the danger of not responding
   to congestion is well-understood, as well as its attendant risk of
   congestion collapse [RFC3714].  However, one side of the Internet's
   commercial community considers that the very essence of IP is to
   provide open access to the internetwork for all applications.  They
   see congestion as a symptom of over-conservative investment, and rely
   on revising application designs to find novel ways to keep
   applications working despite congestion.  They argue that the
   Internet was never intended to be solely for TCP-friendly
   applications.  Meanwhile, another side of the Internet's commercial
   community believes that it is worthwhile providing a network for
   novel applications only if it has sufficient capacity, which can
   happen only if a greater share of application revenues can be



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 61]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   /assured/ for the infrastructure provider.  Otherwise the major
   investments required would carry too much risk and wouldn't happen.

   The lesson articulated in [Tussle] is that we shouldn't embed our
   view on these arguments into the Internet at design time.  Instead we
   should design the Internet so that the outcome of these arguments can
   get decided at run-time.  Re-ECN is designed in that spirit.  Once
   the protocol is available, different network operators can choose how
   liberal they want to be in holding people accountable for the
   congestion they cause.  Some might boldly invest in capacity and not
   police its use at all, hoping that novel applications will result.
   Others might use re-ECN for fine-grained flow policing, expecting to
   make money selling vertically integrated services.  Yet others might
   sit somewhere half-way, perhaps doing coarse, per-user policing.  All
   might change their minds later.  But re-ECN always allows them to
   interconnect so that the careful ones can protect themselves from the
   liberal ones.

   The incentive-based approach used for re-ECN is based on Gibbens and
   Kelly's arguments [Evol_cc] on allowing endpoints the freedom to
   evolve new congestion control algorithms for new applications.  They
   ensured responsible behaviour despite everyone's self-interest by
   applying pricing to ECN marking, and Kelly had proved stability and
   optimality in an earlier paper.

   Re-ECN keeps all the underlying economic incentives, but rearranges
   the feedback.  The idea is to allow a network operator (if it
   chooses) to deploy engineering mechanisms like policers at the front
   of the network which can be designed to behave /as if/ they are
   responding to congestion prices.  Rather than having to subject users
   to congestion pricing, networks can then use more traditional
   charging regimes (or novel ones).  But the engineering can constrain
   the overall amount of congestion a user can cause.  This provides a
   buffer against completely outrageous congestion control, but still
   makes it easy for novel applications to evolve if they need different
   congestion control to the norms.  It also allows novel charging
   regimes to evolve.

   Despite being achieved with a relatively minor protocol change, re-
   ECN is an architectural change.  Previously, Internet congestion
   could only be controlled by the data sender, because it was the only
   one both in a position to control the load and in a position to see
   information on congestion.  Re-ECN levels the playing field.  It
   recognises that the network also has a role to play in moderating
   (policing) congestion control.  But policing is only truly effective
   at the first ingress into an internetwork, whereas path congestion
   was previously only visible at the last egress.  So, re-ECN
   democratises congestion information.  Then the choice over who



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 62]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   actually controls congestion can be made at run-time, not design
   time---a bit like an aircraft with dual controls.  And different
   operators can make different choices.  We believe non-architectural
   approaches to this problem are unlikely to offer more than partial
   solutions (see Section 9).

   Importantly, re-ECN does NOT REQUIRE assumptions about specific
   congestion responses to be embedded in any network elements, except
   at the first ingress to the internetwork if that level of control is
   desired by the ingress operator.  But such tight policing will be a
   matter of agreement between the source and its access network
   operator.  The ingress operator need not police congestion response
   at flow granularity; it can simply hold a source responsible for the
   aggregate congestion it causes, perhaps keeping it within a monthly
   congestion quota.  Or if the ingress network trusts the source, it
   can do nothing.

   Therefore, the aim of the re-ECN protocol is NOT solely to police
   TCP-friendliness.  Re-ECN preserves IP as a generic network layer for
   all sorts of responses to congestion, for all sorts of transports.
   Re-ECN merely ensures truthful downstream congestion information is
   available in the network layer for all sorts of accountability
   applications.

   The end to end design principle does not say that all functions
   should be moved out of the lower layers---only those functions that
   are not generic to all higher layers.  Re-ECN adds a function to the
   network layer that is generic, but was omitted: accountability for
   causing congestion.  Accountability is not something that an end-user
   can provide to themselves.  We believe re-ECN adds no more than is
   sufficient to hold each flow accountable, even if it consists of a
   single datagram.

   "Accountability" implies being able to identify who is responsible
   for causing congestion.  However, at the network layer it would NOT
   be useful to identify the cause of congestion by adding individual or
   organisational identity information, NOR by using source IP
   addresses.  Rather than bringing identity information to the point of
   congestion, we bring downstream congestion information to the point
   where the cause can be most easily identified and dealt with.  That
   is, at any trust boundary congestion can be associated with the
   physically connected upstream neighbour that is directly responsible
   for causing it (whether intentionally or not).  A trust boundary
   interface is exactly the place to police or throttle in order to
   directly mitigate congestion, rather than having to trace the
   (ir)responsible party in order to shut them down.

   Some considered that ECN itself was a layering violation.  The



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 63]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   reasoning went that the interface to a layer should provide a service
   to the higher layer and hide how the lower layer does it.  However,
   ECN reveals the state of the network layer and below to the transport
   layer.  A more positive way to describe ECN is that it is like the
   return value of a function call to the network layer.  It explicitly
   returns the status of the request to deliver a packet, by returning a
   value representing the current risk that a packet will not be served.
   Re-ECN has similar semantics, except the transport layer must try to
   guess the return value, then it can use the actual return value from
   the network layer to modify the next guess.

   The guiding principle behind all the discussion in Section 6.1.6 on
   Policing is that any gain from subverting the protocol should be
   precisely neutralised, rather than punished.  If a gain is punished
   to a greater extent than is sufficient to neutralise it, it will most
   likely open up a new vulnerability, where the amplifying effect of
   the punishment mechanism can be turned on others.

   For instance, if possible, flows should be removed as soon as they go
   negative, but we do NOT RECOMMEND any attempts to discard such flows
   further upstream while they are still positive.  Such over-zealous
   push-back is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.  These flows have
   paid their `fare' up to the point they go negative, so there is no
   harm in delivering them that far.  If someone downstream asks for a
   flow to be dropped as near to the source as possible, because they
   say it is going to become negative later, an upstream node cannot
   test the truth of this assertion.  Rather than have to authenticate
   such messages, re-ECN has been designed so that flows can be dropped
   solely based on locally measurable evidence.  A message hinting that
   a flow should be watched closely to test for negativity is fine.  But
   not a message that claims that a positive flow will go negative
   later, so it should be dropped. .


9.  Related Work

   {Due to lack of time, this section is incomplete.  The reader is
   referred to the Related Work section of [Re-fb] for a brief selection
   of related ideas.}

9.1.  Policing Rate Response to Congestion

   ATM network elements send congestion back-pressure
   messages [ITU-T.I.371] along each connection, duplicating any end to
   end feedback because they don't trust it.  On the other hand, re-ECN
   ensures information in forwarded packets can be used for congestion
   management without requiring a connection-oriented architecture and
   re-using the overhead of fields that are already set aside for end to



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 64]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   end congestion control (and routing loop detection in the case of re-
   TTL in Appendix F).

   We borrowed ideas from policers in the literature [pBox],[XCHOKe],
   AFD etc. for our rate equation policer.  However, without the benefit
   of re-ECN they don't police the correct rate for the condition of
   their path.  They detect unusually high /absolute/ rates, but only
   while the policer itself is congested, because they work by detecting
   prevalent flows in the discards from the local RED queue.  These
   policers must sit at every potential bottleneck, whereas our policer
   need only be located at each ingress to the internetwork.  As Floyd &
   Fall explain [pBox], the limitation of their approach is that a high
   sending rate might be perfectly legitimate, if the rest of the path
   is uncongested or the round trip time is short.  Commercially
   available rate policers cap the rate of any one flow.  Or they
   enforce monthly volume caps in an attempt to control high volume
   file-sharing.  They limit the value a customer derives.  They might
   also limit the congestion customers can cause, but only as an
   accidental side-effect.  They actually punish traffic that fills
   troughs as much as traffic that causes peaks in utilisation.  In
   practice network operators need to be able to allocate service by
   cost during congestion, and by value at other times.

9.2.  Congestion Notification Integrity

   The choice of two ECT code-points in the ECN field [RFC3168]
   permitted future flexibility, optionally allowing the sender to
   encode the experimental ECN nonce [RFC3540] in the packet stream.
   This mechanism has since been included in the specifications of DCCP
   [RFC4340].

   The ECN nonce is an elegant scheme that allows the sender to detect
   if someone in the feedback loop - the receiver especially - tries to
   claim no congestion was experienced when in fact congestion led to
   packet drops or ECN marks.  For each packet it sends, the sender
   chooses between the two ECT codepoints in a pseudo-random sequence.
   Then, whenever the network marks a packet with CE, if the receiver
   wants to deny congestion happened, she has to guess which ECT
   codepoint was overwritten.  She has only a 50:50 chance of being
   correct each time she denies a congestion mark or a drop, which
   ultimately will give her away.

   The purpose of a network-layer nonce should primarily be protection
   of the network, while a transport-layer nonce would be better used to
   protect the sender from cheating receivers.  Now, 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



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 65]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   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 often wishes to transfer data quickly to the receiver as
   much as the receiver wants the data quickly.

   In contrast, the re-ECN protocol enables policing of an agreed rate-
   response to congestion (e.g. 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.  Therefore the re-ECN protocol addresses a much wider range
   of cheating problems, which includes the one addressed by the ECN
   nonce.

9.3.  Identifying Upstream and Downstream Congestion

   Purple [Purple] proposes that routers should use the CWR flag in the
   TCP header of ECN-capable flows to work out path congestion and
   therefore downstream congestion in a similar way to re-ECN.  However,
   because CWR is in the transport layer, it is not always visible to
   network layer routers and policers.  Purple's motivation was to
   improve AQM, not policing.  But, of course, nodes trying to avoid a
   policer would not be expected to allow CWR to be visible.


10.  Security Considerations

   This whole memo concerns the deployment of a secure congestion
   control framework.  However, below we list some specific security
   issues that we are still working on:

   o  Malicious users have ability to launch dynamically changing
      attacks, exploiting the time it takes to detect an attack, given
      ECN marking is binary.  We are concentrating on subtle
      interactions between the ingress policer and the egress dropper in
      an effort to make it impossible to game the system.

   o  There is an inherent need for at least some flow state at the
      egress dropper given the binary marking environment, which leads
      to an apparent vulnerability to state exhaustion attacks.  An



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 66]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      egress dropper design with bounded flow state is in write-up.

   o  A malicious source can spoof another user's address and send
      negative traffic to the same destination in order to fool the
      dropper into sanctioning the other user's flow.  To prevent or
      mitigate these two different kinds of DoS attack, against the
      dropper and against given flows, we are considering various
      protection mechanisms.  Section 5.5.1 discusses one of these.

   o  A malicious client can send requests using a spoofed source
      address to a server (such as a DNS server) that tends to respond
      with single packet responses.  This server will then be tricked
      into having to set FNE on the first (and only) packet of all these
      wasted responses.  Given packets marked FNE are worth +1, this
      will cause such servers to consume more of their allowance to
      cause congestion than they would wish to.  In general, re-ECN is
      deliberately designed so that single packet flows have to bear the
      cost of not discovering the congestion state of their path.  One
      of the reasons for introducing re-ECN is to encourage short flows
      to make use of previous path knowledge by moving the cost of this
      lack of knowledge to sources that create short flows.  Therefore,
      we in the long run we might expect services like DNS to aggregate
      single packet flows into connections where it brings benefits.
      However, this attack where DNS requests are made from spoofed
      addresses genuinely forces the server to waste its resources.  The
      only mitigating feature is that the attacker has to set FNE on
      each of its requests if they are to get through an egress dropper
      to a DNS server.  The attacker therefore has to consume as many
      resources as the victim, which at least implies re-ECN does not
      unwittingly amplify this attack.

   Having highlighted outstanding security issues, we now explain the
   design decisions that were taken based on a security-related
   rationale.  It may seem that the six codepoints of the eight made
   available by extending the ECN field with the RE flag have been used
   rather wastefully to encode just five states.  In effect the RE flag
   has been used as an orthogonal single bit, using up four codepoints
   to encode the three states of positive, neutral and negative worth.
   The mapping of the codepoints in an earlier version of this proposal
   used the codepoint space more efficiently, but the scheme became
   vulnerable to network operators bypassing congestion penalties by
   focusing congestion marking on positive packets.  Appendix B explains
   why fixing that problem while allowing for incremental deployment,
   would have used another codepoint anyway.  So it was better to use
   this orthogonal encoding scheme, which greatly simplified the whole
   protocol and brought with it some subtle security benefits (see the
   last paragraph of Appendix B).




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 67]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   With the scheme as now proposed, once the RE flag is set or cleared
   by the sender or its proxy, it should not be written by the network,
   only read.  So the endpoints can detect if any network maliciously
   alters the RE flag.  IPSec AH integrity checking does not cover the
   IPv4 option flags (they were considered mutable---even the one we
   propose using for the RE flag that was `currently unused' when IPSec
   was defined).  But it would be sufficient for a pair of endpoints to
   make random checks on whether the RE flag was the same when it
   reached the egress as when it left the ingress.  Indeed, if IPSec AH
   had covered the RE flag, any network intending to alter sufficient RE
   flags to make a gain would have focused its alterations on packets
   without authenticating headers (AHs).

   The security of re-ECN has been deliberately designed to not rely on
   cryptography.


11.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA (yet).

   If this memo was to progress to standards track, it would list:

   o  The new RE flag in IPv4 (Section 5.1) and its extension with the
      ECN field to create a new set of extended ECN (EECN) codepoints;

   o  The definition of the EECN codepoints for default Diffserv PHBs
      (Section 3.2)

   o  The new extension header for IPv6 (Section 5.2);

   o  The new combinations of flags in the TCP header for capability
      negotiation (Section 4.1.3);

   o  The new ICMP message type (Section 5.5.1).


12.  Conclusions

   {ToDo:}


13.  Acknowledgements

   Sebastien Cazalet and Andrea Soppera contributed to the idea of re-
   feedback.  All the following have given helpful comments: Andrea
   Soppera, David Songhurst, Peter Hovell, Louise Burness, Phil Eardley,
   Steve Rudkin, Marc Wennink, Fabrice Saffre, Cefn Hoile, Steve Wright,



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 68]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   John Davey, Martin Koyabe, Carla Di Cairano-Gilfedder, Alexandru
   Murgu, Nigel Geffen, Pete Willis, John Adams (BT), Sally Floyd
   (ICIR), Joe Babiarz, Kwok Ho-Chan (Nortel), Stephen Hailes, Mark
   Handley (who developed the attack with canceled packets), Adam
   Greenhalgh (who developed the attack on DNS) (UCL), Jon Crowcroft
   (Uni Cam), David Clark, Bill Lehr, Sharon Gillett, Steve Bauer (who
   complemented our own dummy traffic attacks with others), Liz Maida
   (MIT), and comments from participants in the CRN/CFP Broadband and
   DoS-resistant Internet working groups.


14.  Comments Solicited

   Comments and questions are encouraged and very welcome.  They can be
   addressed to the IETF Transport Area working group's mailing list
   <tsvwg@ietf.org>, and/or to the authors.


15.  References

15.1.  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.

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

   [RFC2960]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C.,
              Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M.,
              Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.

   [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.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 69]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.

   [RFC4341]  Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion
              Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 2: TCP-like
              Congestion Control", RFC 4341, March 2006.

   [RFC4342]  Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for
              Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion
              Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342,
              March 2006.

15.2.  Informative References

   [ARI05]    Adams, J., Roberts, L., and A. IJsselmuiden, "Changing the
              Internet to Support Real-Time Content Supply from a Large
              Fraction of Broadband Residential Users", BT Technology
              Journal (BTTJ) 23(2), April 2005.

   [Bauer06]  Bauer, S., Faratin, P., and R. Beverly, "Assessing the
              assumptions underlying mechanism design for the Internet",
              Proc. Workshop on the Economics of Networked Systems
              (NetEcon06) , June 2006, <http://www.cs.duke.edu/nicl/
              netecon06/papers/ne06-assessing.pdf>.

   [CLoop_pol]
              Salvatori, A., "Closed Loop Traffic Policing", Politecnico
              Torino and Institut Eurecom Masters Thesis ,
              September 2005.

   [ECN-Deploy]
              Floyd, S., "ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) in
              TCP/IP; Implementation and Deployment of ECN", Web-page ,
              May 2004,
              <http://www.icir.org/floyd/ecn.html#implementations>.

   [ECN-MPLS]
              Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
              Marking in MPLS", draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-mpls-01 (work in
              progress), June 2007.

   [ECN-tunnel]
              Briscoe, B., "Layered Encapsulation of Congestion
              Notification", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-00 (work in
              progress), July 2007.

   [Evol_cc]  Gibbens, R. and F. Kelly, "Resource pricing and the
              evolution of congestion control", Automatica 35(12)1969--
              1985, December 1999,



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 70]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


              <http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~frank/evol.html>.

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-ecnsyn]
              Kuzmanovic, A., "Adding Explicit Congestion Notification
              (ECN) Capability to TCP's SYN/ACK  Packets",
              draft-ietf-tcpm-ecnsyn-01 (work in progress),
              October 2006.

   [I-D.moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat]
              Moncaster, T., "A TCP Test to Allow Senders to Identify
              Receiver Non-Compliance",
              draft-moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat-01 (work in progress),
              June 2007.

   [ITU-T.I.371]
              ITU-T, "Traffic Control and Congestion Control in
              {B-ISDN}", ITU-T Rec. I.371 (03/04), March 2004.

   [Jiang02]  Jiang, H. and D. Dovrolis, "The Macroscopic Behavior of
              the TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm", ACM SIGCOMM
              CCR 32(3)75-88, July 2002,
              <http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/571697.571725>.

   [Mathis97]
              Mathis, M., Semke, J., Mahdavi, J., and T. Ott, "The
              Macroscopic Behavior of the TCP Congestion Avoidance
              Algorithm", ACM SIGCOMM CCR 27(3)67--82, July 1997,
              <http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/263932.264023>.

   [PCN-arch]
              Eardley, P., Babiarz, J., Chan, K., Charny, A., Geib, R.,
              Karagiannis, G., Menth, M., and T. Tsou, "Pre-Congestion
              Notification Architecture",
              draft-eardley-pcn-architecture-00 (work in progress),
              June 2007.

   [Purple]   Pletka, R., Waldvogel, M., and S. Mannal, "PURPLE:
              Predictive Active Queue Management Utilizing Congestion
              Information", Proc. Local Computer Networks (LCN 2003) ,
              October 2003.

   [RFC2208]  Mankin, A., Baker, F., Braden, B., Bradner, S., O'Dell,
              M., Romanow, A., Weinrib, A., and L. Zhang, "Resource
              ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Version 1 Applicability
              Statement Some Guidelines on Deployment", RFC 2208,
              September 1997.

   [RFC2402]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header",



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 71]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


              RFC 2402, November 1998.

   [RFC2406]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security
              Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

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

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

   [RFC3514]  Bellovin, S., "The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header",
              RFC 3514, April 2003.

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

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

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

   [Re-PCN]   Briscoe, B., "Emulating Border Flow Policing using Re-ECN
              on Bulk Data", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-border-cheat-01
              (work in progress), March 2006.

   [Re-fb]    Briscoe, B., Jacquet, A., Di Cairano-Gilfedder, C.,
              Salvatori, A., Soppera, A., and M. Koyabe, "Policing
              Congestion Response in an Internetwork Using Re-Feedback",
              ACM SIGCOMM CCR 35(4)277--288, August 2005, <http://
              www.acm.org/sigs/sigcomm/sigcomm2005/
              techprog.html#session8>.

   [Savage99]
              Savage, S., Cardwell, N., Wetherall, D., and T. Anderson,
              "TCP congestion control with a misbehaving receiver", ACM
              SIGCOMM CCR 29(5), October 1999,
              <http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/savage99tcp.html>.

   [Smart_rtg]
              Goldenberg, D., Qiu, L., Xie, H., Yang, Y., and Y. Zhang,



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 72]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


              "Optimizing Cost and Performance for Multihoming", ACM
              SIGCOMM CCR 34(4)79--92, October 2004,
              <http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/698472.html>.

   [Steps_DoS]
              Handley, M. and A. Greenhalgh, "Steps towards a DoS-
              resistant Internet Architecture", Proc. ACM SIGCOMM
              workshop on Future directions in network architecture
              (FDNA'04) pp 49--56, August 2004.

   [Tussle]   Clark, D., Sollins, K., Wroclawski, J., and R. Braden,
              "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet", ACM
              SIGCOMM CCR 32(4)347--356, October 2002,
              <http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm2002/papers/
              tussle.pdf>.

   [XCHOKe]   Chhabra, P., Chuig, S., Goel, A., John, A., Kumar, A.,
              Saran, H., and R. Shorey, "XCHOKe: Malicious Source
              Control for Congestion Avoidance at Internet Gateways",
              Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Network
              Protocols (ICNP-02) , November 2002,
              <http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~akumar/xchoke.pdf>.

   [pBox]     Floyd, S. and K. Fall, "Promoting the Use of End-to-End
              Congestion Control in the Internet", IEEE/ACM Transactions
              on Networking 7(4) 458--472, August 1999,
              <http://www.aciri.org/floyd/end2end-paper.html>.


Appendix A.  Precise Re-ECN Protocol Operation

   {ToDo: fix this}

   The protocol operation described in Section 3.3 was an approximation.
   In fact, standard ECN router marking combines 1% and 2% marking into
   slightly less than 3% whole-path marking, because routers
   deliberately mark CE whether or not it has already been marked by
   another router upstream.  So the combined marking fraction would
   actually be 100% - (100% - 1%)(100% - 2%) = 2.98%.

   To generalise this we will need some notation.

   o  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.

   o  m_j represents the fraction of octets *m*arked CE by a particular
      router (whether or not they are already marked) because of
      congestion of resource j.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 73]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   o  u_j represents congestion *u*pstream of resource j, being the
      fraction of CE marking in arriving packet headers (before
      marking).

   o  p_j represents *p*ath congestion, being the fraction of packets
      arriving at resource j with the RE flag blanked (excluding Not-
      RECT packets).

   o  v_j denotes expected congestion downstream of resource j, which
      can be thought of as a *v*irtual marking fraction, being derived
      from two other marking fractions.

   Observed fractions of each particular codepoint (u, p and v) and
   router marking rate m are dimensionless fractions, being the ratio of
   two data volumes (marked and total) over a monitoring period.  All
   measurements are in terms of octets, not packets, assuming that line
   resources are more congestible than packet processing.

   The path congestion (RE blanking fraction) set by the sender should
   reflect the upstream congestion (CE marking fraction) fed back from
   the destination.  Therefore in the steady state

      p_0  = u_n
           = 1 - (1 - m_1)(1 - m_2)...

   Similarly, at some point j in the middle of the network, if p = 1 -
   (1 - u_j)(1 - v_j), then

      v_j  = 1 - (1 - p)/(1 - u_j)

          ~= p - u_j;                      if u_j << 100%

   So, between the two routers in the example in Section 3.3, congestion
   downstream is

      v_1  = 100.00% - (100% - 2.98%) / (100% - 1.00%)
           = 2.00%,

   or a useful approximation of downstream congestion is

      v_1 ~= 2.98% - 1.00%
          ~= 1.98%.


Appendix B.  Justification for Two Codepoints Signifying Zero Worth
             Packets

   It may seem a waste of a codepoint to set aside two codepoints of the



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 74]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   Extended ECN field to signify zero worth (RECT and CE(0) are both
   worth zero).  The justification is subtle, but worth recording.

   The original version of re-ECN ([Re-fb] and draft-00 of this memo)
   used three codepoints for neutral (ECT(1)), positive (ECT(0)) and
   negative (CE) packets.  The sender set packets to neutral unless re-
   echoing congestion, when it set them positive, in much the same way
   that it blanks the RE flag in the current protocol.  However, routers
   were meant to mark congestion by setting packets negative (CE)
   irrespective of whether they had previously been neutral or positive.

   However, we did not arrange for senders to remember which packet had
   been sent with which codepoint, or for feedback to say exactly which
   packets arrived with which codepoints.  The transport was meant to
   inflate the number of positive packets it sent to allow for a few
   being wiped out by congestion marking.  We (wrongly) assumed that
   routers would congestion mark packets indiscriminately, so the
   transport could infer how many positive packets had been marked and
   compensate accordingly by re-echoing.  But this created a perverse
   incentive for routers to preferentially congestion mark positive
   packets rather than neutral ones.

   We could have removed this perverse incentive by requiring re-ECN
   senders to remember which packets they had sent with which codepoint.
   And for feedback from the receiver to identify which packets arrived
   as which.  Then, if a positive packet was congestion marked to
   negative, the sender could have re-echoed twice to maintain the
   balance between positive and negative at the receiver.

   Instead, we chose to make re-echoing congestion (blanking RE)
   orthogonal to congestion notification (marking CE), which required a
   second neutral codepoint (the orthogonal scheme forms the main square
   of four codepoints in Figure 2).  Then the receiver would be able to
   detect and echo a congestion event even if it arrived on a packet
   that had originally been positive.

   If we had added extra complexity to the sender and receiver
   transports to track changes to individual packets, we could have made
   it work, but then routers would have had an incentive to mark
   positive packets with half the probability of neutral packets.  That
   in turn would have led router algorithms to become more complex.
   Then senders wouldn't know whether a mark had been introduced by a
   simple or a complex router algorithm.  That in turn would have
   required another codepoint to distinguish between legacy ECN and new
   re-ECN router marking.

   Once the cost of IP header codepoint real-estate was the same for
   both schemes, there was no doubt that the simpler option for



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 75]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   endpoints and for routers should be chosen.  The resulting protocol
   also no longer needed the tricky inflation/deflation complexity of
   the original (broken) scheme.  It was also much simpler to understand
   conceptually.

   A further advantage of the new orthogonal four-codepoint scheme was
   that senders owned sole rights to change the RE flag and routers
   owned sole rights to change the ECN field.  Although we still arrange
   the incentives so neither party strays outside their dominion, these
   clear lines of authority simplify the matter.

   Finally, a little redundancy can be very powerful in a scheme such as
   this.  In one flow, the proportion of packets changed to CE should be
   the same as the proportion of RECT packets changed to CE(-1) and the
   proportion of Re-Echo packets changed to CE(0).  Double checking
   using such redundant relationships can improve the security of a
   scheme (cf. double-entry book-keeping or the ECN Nonce).
   Alternatively, it might be necessary to exploit the redundancy in the
   future to encode an extra information channel.


Appendix C.  ECN Compatibility

   The rationale for choosing the particular combinations of SYN and SYN
   ACK flags in Section 4.1.3 is as follows.

   Choice of SYN flags:  A 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] (CWR=1, ECE=1).  But at the same time,
      we wanted a server (host B) that is Re-ECT to be able to recognise
      that the client (A) is also Re-ECT.  We believe also setting NS=1
      in the initial SYN 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.  At the time ECN
      was defined, the NS flag was not defined, so setting NS=1 should
      be ignored by existing ECT receivers (but testing against
      implementations may yet prove otherwise).  The ECN Nonce
      RFC [RFC3540] is silent on what the NS field might be set to in
      the TCP SYN, but we believe the intent was for a nonce client to
      set NS=0 in the initial SYN (again only testing will tell).
      Therefore we define a Re-ECN-setup SYN as one with NS=1, CWR=1 &
      ECE=1

   Choice of SYN ACK flags:  Choice of SYN ACK: The client (A) needs to
      be able to determine whether the server (B) is Re-ECT.  The
      original ECN specification required an ECT server 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



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 76]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


      already set in the SYN ACK of an ECT-Nonce server.  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 echoes whatever flags were in the SYN into its SYN
      ACK.  Therefore we define a Re-ECN-setup SYN ACK as one with CWR=1
      & ECE=0.

   Choice of two alternative SYN ACKs:  the NS flag may take either
      value in a Re-ECN-setup SYN ACK.  Section 5.4 REQUIRES that a Re-
      ECT server MUST set the NS flag to 1 in a Re-ECN-setup SYN ACK to
      echo congestion experienced (CE) on the initial SYN.  Otherwise a
      Re-ECN-setup SYN ACK MUST be returned with NS=0.  The only current
      known use of the NS flag in a SYN ACK is to indicate support for
      the ECN nonce, which will be negotiated by setting CWR=0 & ECE=1.
      Given the ECN nonce MUST NOT be used for a RECN mode connection, a
      Re-ECN-setup SYN ACK can use either setting of the NS flag without
      any risk of confusion, because the CWR & ECE flags will be
      reversed relative to those used by an ECN nonce SYN ACK.


Appendix D.  Packet Marking During Flow Start

   {ToDo: Write up proof that sender should mark FNE on first and third
   data packets, even with the largest allowed initial window.}


Appendix E.  Example Egress Dropper Algorithm

   {ToDo: Write up the basic algorithm with flow state, then the
   aggregated one.}


Appendix F.  Re-TTL

   This Appendix gives an overview of a proposal to be able to overload
   the TTL field in the IP header to monitor downstream propagation
   delay.  This is included to show that it would be possible to take
   account of RTT if it was deemed desirable.

   Delay re-feedback can be achieved by overloading the TTL field,
   without changing IP or router TTL processing.  A target value for TTL
   at the destination would need standardising, say 16.  If the path hop



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 77]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   count increased by more than 16 during a routing change, it would
   temporarily be mistaken for a routing loop, so this target would need
   to be chosen to exceed typical hop count increases.  The TCP wire
   protocol and handlers would need modifying to feed back the
   destination TTL and initialise it.  It would be necessary to
   standardise the unit of TTL in terms of real time (as was the
   original intent in the early days of the Internet).

   In the longer term, precision could be improved if routers
   decremented TTL to represent exact propagation delay to the next
   router.  That is, for a router to decrement TTL by, say, 1.8 time
   units it would alternate the decrement of every packet between 1 & 2
   at a ratio of 1:4.  Although this might sometimes require a seemingly
   dangerous null decrement, a packet in a loop would still decrement to
   zero after 255 time units on average.  As more routers were upgraded
   to this more accurate TTL decrement, path delay estimates would
   become increasingly accurate despite the presence of some legacy
   routers that continued to always decrement the TTL by 1.


Appendix G.  Policer Designs to ensure Congestion Responsiveness

G.1.  Per-user Policing

   User policing requires a policer on the ingress interface of the
   access router associated with the user.  At that point, the traffic
   of the user hasn't diverged on different routes yet; nor has it mixed
   with traffic from other sources.

   In order to ensure that a user doesn't generate more congestion in
   the network than her due share, a modified bulk token-bucket is
   maintained with the following parameter:

   o  b_0 the initial token level

   o  r the filling rate

   o  b_max the bucket depth

   The same token bucket algorithm is used as in many areas of
   networking, but how it is used is very different:

   o  all traffic from a user over the lifetime of their subscription is
      policed in the same token bucket.

   o  only positive and canceled packets (Re-Echo, FNE and CE(0))
      consume tokens




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 78]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   Such a policer will allow network operators to throttle the
   contribution of their users to network congestion.  This will require
   the appropriate contractual terms to be in place between operators
   and users.  For instance: a condition for a user to subscribe to a
   given network service may be that she should not cause more than a
   volume C_user of congestion over a reference period T_user, although
   she may carry forward up to N_user times her allowance at the end of
   each period.  These terms directly set the parameter of the user
   policer:

   o  b_0 = C_user

   o  r = C_user/T_user

   o  b_max = b_0 * (N_user +1)

   Besides the congestion budget policer above, another user policer may
   be necessary to further rate-limit FNE packets, if they are to be
   marked rather than dropped (see discussion in Section 5.3.).  Rate-
   limiting FNE packets will prevent high bursts of new flow arrivals,
   which is a very useful feature in DoS prevention.  A condition to
   subscribe to a given network service would have to be that a user
   should not generate more than C_FNE FNE packets, over a reference
   period T_FNE, with no option to carry forward any of the allowance at
   the end of each period.  These terms directly set the parameters of
   the FNE policer:

   o  b_0 = C_FNE

   o  r = C_FNE/T_FNE

   o  b_max = b_0

   T_FNE should be a much shorter period than T_user: for instance T_FNE
   could be in the order of minutes while T_user could be in order of
   weeks.

G.2.  Per-flow Rate Policing

   Whilst we believe that simple per-user policing would be sufficient
   to ensure senders comply with congestion control, some operators may
   wish to police the rate response of each flow to congestion as well.
   Although we do not believe this will be neceesary, we include this
   section to show how one could perform per-flow policing using
   enforcement of TCP-fairness as an example.  Per-flow policing aims to
   enforce congestion responsiveness on the shortest information
   timescale on a network path: packet roundtrips.




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 79]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   This again requires that the appropriate terms be agreed between a
   network operator and its users, where a congestion responsiveness
   policy might be required for the use of a given network service
   (perhaps unless the user specifically requests otherwise).

   As an example, we describe below how a rate adaptation policer can be
   designed when the applicable rate adaptation policy is TCP-
   compliance.  In that context, the average throughput of a flow will
   be expected to be bounded by the value of the TCP throughput during
   congestion avoidance, given in Mathis' formula [Mathis97]

      x_TCP = k * s / ( T * sqrt(m) )

   where:

   o  x_TCP is the throughput of the TCP flow in packets per second,

   o  k is a constant upper-bounded by sqrt(3/2),

   o  s is the average packet size of the flow,

   o  T is the roundtrip time of the flow,

   o  m is the congestion level experienced by the flow.

   We define the marking period N=1/m which represents the average
   number of packets between two positive or canceled packets.  Mathis'
   formula can be re-written as:

      x_TCP = k*s*sqrt(N)/T

   We can then get the average inter-mark time in a compliant TCP flow,
   dt_TCP, by solving (x_TCP/s)*dt_TCP = N which gives

      dt_TCP = sqrt(N)*T/k

   We rely on this equation for the design of a rate-adaptation policer
   as a variation of a token bucket.  In that case a policer has to be
   set up for each policed flow.  This may be triggered by FNE packets,
   with the remainder of flows being all rate limited together if they
   do not start with an FNE packet.

   Where maintaining per flow state is not a problem, for instance on
   some access routers, systematic per-flow policing may be considered.
   Should per-flow state be more constrained, rate adaptation policing
   could be limited to a random sample of flows exhibiting positive or
   canceled packets.




Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 80]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   As in the case of user policing, only positive or canceled packets
   will consume tokens, however the amount of tokens consumed will
   depend on the congestion signal.

   When a new rate adaptation policer is set up for flow j, the
   following state is created:

   o  a token bucket b_j of depth b_max starting at level b_0

   o  a timestamp t_j = timenow()

   o  a counter N_j = 0

   o  a roundtrip estimate T_j

   o  a filling rate r

   When the policing node forwards a packet of flow j with no Re-Echo:

   o  . the counter is incremented: N_j += 1

   When the policing node forwards a packet of flow j carrying a
   congestion mark (CE):

   o  the counter is incremented: N_j += 1

   o  the token level is adjusted: b_j += r*(timenow()-t_j) - sqrt(N_j)*
      T_j/k

   o  the counter is reset: N_j = 0

   o  the timer is reset: t_j = timenow()

   An implementation example will be given in a later draft that avoids
   having to extract the square root.

   Analysis: For a TCP flow, for r= 1 token/sec, on average,

      r*(timenow()-t_j)-sqrt(N_j)* T_j/k = dt_TCP - sqrt(N)*T/k = 0

   This means that the token level will fluctuate around its initial
   level.  The depth b_max of the bucket sets the timescale on which the
   rate adaptation policy is performed while the filling rate r sets the
   trade-off between responsiveness and robustness:

   o  the higher b_max, the longer it will take to catch greedy flows





Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 81]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   o  the higher r, the fewer false positives (greedy verdict on
      compliant flows) but the more false negatives (compliant verdict
      on greedy flows)

   This rate adaptation policer requires the availability of a roundtrip
   estimate which may be obtained for instance from the application of
   re-feedback to the downstream delay Appendix F or passive estimation
   [Jiang02].

   When the bucket of a policer located at the access router (whether it
   is a per-user policer or a per-flow policer) becomes empty, the
   access router SHOULD drop at least all packets causing the token
   level to become negative.  The network operator MAY take further
   sanctions if the token level of the per-flow policers associated with
   a user becomes negative.


Appendix H.  Downstream Congestion Metering Algorithms

H.1.  Bulk Downstream Congestion Metering Algorithm

   To meter the bulk amount of downstream congestion in traffic crossing
   an inter-domain border an algorithm is needed that accumulates the
   size of positive packets and subtracts the size of negative packets.
   We maintain two counters:

      V_b: accumulated congestion volume

      B: total data volume (in case it is needed)

   A suitable pseudo-code algorithm for a border router is as follows:

   ====================================================================
   V_b = 0
   B   = 0
   for each re-ECN-capable packet {
       b = readLength(packet)      /* set b to packet size          */
       B += b                      /* accumulate total volume       */
       if readEECN(packet) == (Re-Echo || FNE) {
           V_b += b                /* increment...                  */
       } elseif readEECN(packet) == CE(-1) {
           V_b -= b                /* ...or decrement V_b...        */
       }                           /*...depending on EECN field     */
   }
   ====================================================================

   At the end of an accounting period this counter V_b represents the
   congestion volume that penalties could be applied to, as described in



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 82]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   Section 6.1.6.

   For instance, accumulated volume of congestion through a border
   interface over a month might be V_b = 5PB (petabyte = 10^15 byte).
   This might have resulted from an average downstream congestion level
   of 1% on an accumulated total data volume of B = 500PB.

H.2.  Inflation Factor for Persistently Negative Flows

   The following process is suggested to complement the simple algorithm
   above in order to protect against the various attacks from
   persistently negative flows described in Section 6.1.6.  As explained
   in that section, the most important and first step is to estimate the
   contribution of persistently negative flows to the bulk volume of
   downstream pre-congestion and to inflate this bulk volume as if these
   flows weren't there.  The process below has been designed to give an
   unbiased estimate, but it may be possible to define other processes
   that achieve similar ends.

   While the above simple metering algorithm is counting the bulk of
   traffic over an accounting period, the meter should also select a
   subset of the whole flow ID space that is small enough to be able to
   realistically measure but large enough to give a realistic sample.
   Many different samples of different subsets of the ID space should be
   taken at different times during the accounting period, preferably
   covering the whole ID space.  During each sample, the meter should
   count the volume of positive packets and subtract the volume of
   negative, maintaining a separate account for each flow in the sample.
   It should run a lot longer than the large majority of flows, to avoid
   a bias from missing the starts and ends of flows, which tend to be
   positive and negative respectively.

   Once the accounting period finishes, the meter should calculate the
   total of the accounts V_{bI} for the subset of flows I in the sample,
   and the total of the accounts V_{fI} excluding flows with a negative
   account from the subset I. Then the weighted mean of all these
   samples should be taken a_S = sum_{forall I} V_{fI} / sum_{forall I}
   V_{bI}.

   If V_b is the result of the bulk accounting algorithm over the
   accounting period (Appendix H.1) it can be inflated by this factor
   a_S to get a good unbiased estimate of the volume of downstream
   congestion over the accounting period a_S.V_b, without being polluted
   by the effect of persistently negative flows.







Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 83]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


Appendix I.  Argument for holding back the ECN nonce

   The ECN nonce is a mechanism that allows a /sending/ transport to
   detect if drop or ECN marking at a congested router has been
   suppressed by a node somewhere in the feedback loop---another router
   or the receiver.

   Space for the ECN nonce was set aside in [RFC3168] (currently
   proposed standard) while the full nonce mechanism is specified in
   [RFC3540] (currently experimental).  The specifications for [RFC4340]
   (currently proposed standard) requires that "Each DCCP sender SHOULD
   set ECN Nonces on its packets...".  It also mandates as a requirement
   for all CCID profiles that "Any newly defined acknowledgement
   mechanism MUST include a way to transmit ECN Nonce Echoes back to the
   sender.", therefore:

   o  The CCID profile for TCP-like Congestion Control [RFC4341]
      (currently proposed standard) says "The sender will use the ECN
      Nonce for data packets, and the receiver will echo those nonces in
      its Ack Vectors."

   o  The CCID profile for TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) [RFC4342]
      recommends that "The sender [use] Loss Intervals options' ECN
      Nonce Echoes (and possibly any Ack Vectors' ECN Nonce Echoes) to
      probabilistically verify that the receiver is correctly reporting
      all dropped or marked packets."

   The primary function of the ECN nonce is to protect the integrity of
   the information about congestion: ECN marks and packet drops.
   However, when the nonce is used to protect the integrity of
   information about packet drops, rather than ECN marks, a transport
   layer nonce will always be sufficient (because a drop loses the
   transport header as well as the ECN field in the network header),
   which would avoid using scarce IP header codepoint space.  Similarly,
   a transport layer nonce would protect against a receiver sending
   early acknowledgements [Savage99].

   If the ECN nonce reveals integrity problems with the information
   about congestion, the sending transport can use that knowledge for
   two functions:

   o  to protect its own resources, by allocating them in proportion to
      the rates that each network path can sustain, based on congestion
      control,

   o  and to protect congested routers in the network, by slowing down
      drastically its connection to the destination with corrupt
      congestion information.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 84]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   If the sending transport chooses to act in the interests of congested
   routers, it can reduce its rate if it detects some malicious party in
   the feedback loop may be suppressing ECN feedback.  But it would only
   be useful to congested routers when /all/ senders using them are
   trusted to act in interest of the congested routers.

   In the end, the only essential use of a network layer nonce is when
   sending transports (e.g. large servers) want to allocate their /own/
   resources in proportion to the rates that each network path can
   sustain, based on congestion control.  In that case, the nonce allows
   senders to be assured that they aren't being duped into giving more
   of their own resources to a particular flow.  And if congestion
   suppression is detected, the sending transport can rate limit the
   offending connection to protect its own resources.  Certainly, this
   is a useful function, but the IETF should carefully decide whether
   such a single, very specific case warrants IP header space.

   In contrast, re-ECN allows all routers to fully protect themselves
   from such attacks, without having to trust anyone - senders,
   receivers, neighbouring networks.  Re-ECN is therefore proposed in
   preference to the ECN nonce on the basis that it addresses the
   generic problem of accountability for congestion of a network's
   resources at the IP layer.

   Delaying the ECN nonce is justified because the applicability of the
   ECN nonce seems too limited for it to consume a two-bit codepoint in
   the IP header.  It therefore seems prudent to give time for an
   alternative way to be found to do the one function the nonce is
   essential for.

   Moreover, while we have re-designed the re-ECN codepoints so that
   they do not prevent the ECN nonce progressing, the same is not true
   the other way round.  If the ECN nonce started to see some deployment
   (perhaps because it was blessed with proposed standard status),
   incremental deployment of re-ECN would effectively be impossible,
   because re-ECN marking fractions at inter-domain borders would be
   polluted by unknown levels of nonce traffic.

   The authors are aware that re-ECN must prove it has the potential it
   claims if it is to displace the nonce.  Therefore, every effort has
   been made to complete a comprehensive specification of re-ECN so that
   its potential can be assessed.  We therefore seek the opinion of the
   Internet community on whether the re-ECN protocol is sufficiently
   useful to warrant standards action.







Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 85]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


Authors' Addresses

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

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


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

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


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

   Email: alessandro.salvatori@gmail.com


   Martin Koyabe
   BT
   PP2a Rigel House, Adastral Park
   Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich  IP5 3RE
   UK

   Phone: +44 1473 646923
   Email: martin.koyabe@bt.com
   URI:





Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 86]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


   Toby Moncaster
   BT
   B54/70, Adastral Park
   Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich  IP5 3RE
   UK

   Phone: +44 1473 648734
   Email: toby.moncaster@bt.com










































Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 87]


Internet-Draft   Re-ECN: Adding Accountability to TCP/IP       July 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

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

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

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgments

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).  This document was produced
   using xml2rfc v1.32 (of http://xml.resource.org/) from a source in
   RFC-2629 XML format.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires January 10, 2008               [Page 88]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/