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

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-tcpm-rack

TCP Maintenance Working Group                                   Y. Cheng
Internet-Draft                                               N. Cardwell
Intended status: Experimental                                Google, Inc
Expires: April 21, 2016                                 October 19, 2015


        RACK: a time-based fast loss detection algorithm for TCP
                        draft-cheng-tcpm-rack-00

Abstract

   This document presents a new TCP loss detection algorithm called RACK
   ("Recent ACKnowledgment").  RACK uses the notion of time, instead of
   packet or sequence counts, to detect losses, for modern TCP
   implementations that can support per-packet timestamps and the
   selective acknowledgment (SACK) option.  It is intended to replace
   the conventional DUPACK threshold approach and its variants, as well
   as other nonstandard approaches.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

1.  Introduction

   This document presents a new loss detection algorithm called RACK
   ("Recent ACKnowledgment").  RACK uses the notion of time instead of
   the conventional packet or sequence counting approaches for detecting
   losses.  RACK deems a packet lost if some packet sent sufficiently
   later has been cumulatively or selectively acknowledged.  It does
   this by recording packet transmission times and inferring losses
   using cumulative acknowledgments or selective acknowledgment (SACK)
   TCP options.

   The main motivation for RACK is to replace both the standard and
   nonstandard loss detection algorithms
   [RFC5681][RFC6675][RFC5827][RFC4653][FACK][THIN-STREAM] to simplify
   TCP development.

   Another motivation is to improve loss detection for modern traffic
   patterns and underlying network changes.  First, the prevalence of
   interactive request-response traffic means TCP is often application-
   limited.  Second, wide deployment of traffic policers results in
   frequent lost retransmissions and losses at the tail of transactions.
   Third, mobile wireless and router load-balancing cause frequent
   occurrences of small degrees of reordering.

   These three factors together make existing packet or sequence
   counting approaches inefficient.  This is because mechanisms based
   purely on counting packets in sequence order can either detect loss
   quickly or accurately, but it is hard to achieve both, especially
   when the sender is application-limited and reordering is
   unpredictable.  And under these conditions none of them can detect
   lost retransmission well.

2.  Requirements

   The reader is expected to be familiar with the definitions given in
   the TCP congestion control [RFC5681] and selective acknowledgment
   [RFC2018] RFCs.  Familiarity with the conservative SACK-based
   recovery for TCP [RFC6675] is not expected but helps.

   RACK has three requirements:

   1.  The connection MUST use selective acknowledgment (SACK) options
       [RFC2018].





Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


   2.  For each packet sent, the sender MUST store its most recent
       transmission time with (at least) millisecond granularity.  For
       round-trip times lower than a millisecond (e.g., intra-datacenter
       communications) microsecond granularity would significantly help
       the detection latency but is not required.

   3.  For each packet sent, the sender MUST store whether the packet
       has been retransmitted or not.

   We assume that requirement 1 implies the sender keeps a SACK
   scoreboard, which is a data structure to store selective
   acknowledgment information on a per-connection basis.  For the ease
   of explaining the algorithm, we use a pseudo-scoreboard that manages
   the data in sequence number ranges.  But the specifics of the data
   structure are left to the implementor.

   RACK does not need any change on the receiver.

3.  Definitions of variables

   A sender needs to store these new RACK variables:

   "Packet.xmit_time" is the time of the last transmission of a data
   packet, including any retransmissions, if any.  The sender needs to
   record the transmission time for each packet sent and not yet
   acknowledged.  The time MUST be stored at millisecond granularity or
   finer.

   "RACK.xmit_time" is the most recent Packet.xmit_time among all the
   packets that were delivered (either cumulatively acknowledged or
   selectively acknowledged) on the connection.

   "RACK.RTT" is the associated RTT measured when RACK.xmit_time, above,
   was changed.  It is the RTT of the most recently transmitted packet
   that has been delivered (either cumulatively acknowledged or
   selectively acknowledged) on the connection.

   "RACK.reo_wnd" is a reordering window for the connection, computed in
   the unit of time used for recording packet transmission times.  It is
   used to defer the moment at which RACK marks a packet lost.

   "RACK.min_RTT" is the estimated minimum round-trip time (RTT) of the
   connection.

   Note that the Packet.xmit_time variable is per packet in flight.  The
   RACK.xmit_time, RACK.RTT, RACK.reo_wnd, and RACK.min_RTT variables
   are per connection.




Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


4.  Algorithm Details

4.1.  Transmitting a data packet

   Upon transmitting or retransmitting a packet, record the time in
   Packet.xmit_time.

4.2.  Upon receiving an ACK

   Step 1: Update RACK.min_RTT.

   Use the RTT measurements obtained in [RFC6298] or [RFC7323] to update
   the estimated minimum RTT in RACK.min_RTT.  The sender can track a
   simple global minimum of all RTT measurements from the connection, or
   a windowed min-filtered value of recent RTT measurements.  This
   document does not specify an exact approach.

   Step 2: Update RACK.reo_wnd.

   To handle the prevalent small degree of reordering, RACK.reo_wnd
   serves as an allowance for settling time before marking a packet
   lost.  By default it is 1 millisecond.  We RECOMMEND implementing the
   reordering detection in [REORDER-DETECT][RFC4737] to dynamically
   adjust the reordering window.  When the sender detects packet
   reordering RACK.reo_wnd MAY be changed to RACK.min_RTT/4.  We discuss
   more about the reordering window in the next section.

   Step 3: Advance RACK.xmit_time and update RACK.RTT.

   Given the information provided in an ACK, each packet cumulatively
   ACKed or SACKed is marked as delivered in the scoreboard.  Among all
   the packets ACKed or SACKed so far in the connection, record the most
   recent Packet.xmit_time in RACK.xmit_time if it is ahead of
   RACK.xmit_time, unless the retransmission is considered as likely
   spurious by the following check.  Ignore the packet if it has been
   retransmitted and either of two condition is true:

   1.  The Timestamp Echo Reply field (TSecr) of the ACK's timestamp
       option [RFC7323], if available, indicates the ACK was not
       acknowledging the last retransmission of the packet.

   2.  The packet was last retransmitted less than RACK.min_rtt ago.
       While it is still possible the packet is spuriously retransmitted
       because of a recent RTT decrease, we believe that our experience
       suggests this is a reasonable heuristic.

   If this ACK causes a change to RACK.xmit_time then record the RTT
   implied by this ACK: set RACK.RTT = now - RACK.xmit_time.



Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


   Exit here and omit step 3 if RACK.xmit_time has not changed.

   Step 3: Detect losses.

   For each packet that has not been fully SACKed, if RACK.xmit_time is
   after Packet.xmit_time + RACK.reo_wnd, then mark the packet (or its
   corresponding sequence range) lost in the scoreboard.  The rationale
   is that if another packet that was sent later has been delivered, and
   the reordering window or "reordering settling time" has already
   passed, the packet was likely lost.

   If a packet that was sent later has been delivered, but the
   reordering window has not passed, then it is not yet safe to deem the
   given packet lost.  Using the basic algorithm above, the sender would
   wait for the next ACK to further advance RACK.xmit_time; but this
   risks a timeout (RTO) if no more ACKs come back (e.g, due to losses
   or application limit).  For timely loss detection, the sender MAY
   install a "reordering settling" timer set to fire at the earliest
   moment at which it is safe to conclude that some packet is lost.  The
   earliest moment is the time it takes to expire the reordering window
   of the earliest unacked packet in flight, which is the minimum value
   of (Packet.xmit_time + RACK.RTT + RACK.reo_wnd + 1ms) across all
   unacknowledged packets.

   This timer expiration value can be derived as follows.  As a starting
   point, we consider that the reordering window has passed if the RACK
   packet was sent sufficiently after the packet in question, or a
   sufficient time has elapsed since the RACK packet was S/ACKed, or
   some combination of the two.  More precisely, RACK marks a packet as
   lost if the reordering window for a packet has elapsed through the
   sum of:

   1.  delta in transmit time between a packet and the RACK packet

   2.  delta in time between the S/ACK of the RACK packet
       (RACK.sacked_time) and now

   So we mark a packet as lost if:

RACK.xmit_time > Packet.xmit_time
  AND
(RACK.xmit_time - Packet.xmit_time) + (now - RACK.sacked_time) > RACK.reo_wnd

   If we solve this second condition for "now", the moment at which we
   can declare a packet lost, then we get:

now > Packet.xmit_time + RACK.reo_wnd + (RACK.sacked_time - RACK.xmit_time)




Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


   Then (RACK.sacked_time - RACK.xmit_time) is just the RTT of the
   packet we used to set RACK.xmit_time, so this reduces to:

   now > Packet.xmit_time + RACK.RTT + RACK.reo_wnd

   The following pseudocode implements the algorithm above.  When an ACK
   is received or the RACK timer expires, call RACK_detect_loss():

RACK_detect_loss():
    min_timeout = 0

    For each packet, Packet, in the scoreboard:
        If Packet is already SACKed, ACKed,
           or marked lost and not yet retransmitted:
            Skip to the next packet

        If Packet.xmit_time > RACK.xmit_time:
            Skip to the next packet

        timeout = Packet.xmit_time + RACK.RTT + RACK.reo_wnd + 1
        If now >= timeout
            Mark Packet lost
        Else If (min_timeout == 0) or (timeout is before min_timeout):
            min_timeout = timeout

    If min_timeout != 0
        Arm the RACK timer to call RACK_detect_loss() at the time min_timeout

5.  Algorithm Analysis

5.1.  Advantages

   The biggest advantage of RACK is that every data packet, whether it
   is an original data transmission or a retransmission, can be used to
   detect losses of the packets sent prior to it.

   Example: tail drop.  Consider a sender that transmits a window of
   three data packets (P1, P2, P3), and P1 and P3 are lost.  Suppose the
   transmission of each packet is at least RACK.reo_wnd (1 millisecond
   by default) after the transmission of the previous packet.  RACK will
   mark P1 as lost when the SACK of P2 is received, and this will
   trigger the retransmission of P1 as R1.  When R1 is cumulatively
   acknowledged, RACK will mark P3 as lost and the sender will
   retransmit P3 as R3.  This example illustrates how RACK is able to
   repair certain drops at the tail of a transaction without any timer.
   Notice that neither the conventional duplicate ACK threshold
   [RFC5681], nor [RFC6675], nor the Forward Acknowledgment [FACK]




Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


   algorithm can detect such losses, because of the required packet or
   sequence count.

   Example: lost retransmit.  Consider a window of three data packets
   (P1, P2, P3) that are sent; P1 and P2 are dropped.  Suppose the
   transmission of each packet is at least RACK.reo_wnd (1 millisecond
   by default) after the transmission of the previous packet.  When P3
   is SACKed, RACK will mark P1 and P2 lost and they will be
   retransmitted as R1 and R2.  Suppose R1 is lost again (as a tail
   drop) but R2 is SACKed; RACK will mark R1 lost for retransmission
   again.  Again, neither the conventional three duplicate ACK threshold
   approach, nor [RFC6675], nor the Forward Acknowledgment [FACK]
   algorithm can detect such losses.  And such a lost retransmission is
   very common when TCP is being rate-limited, particularly by token
   bucket policers with large bucket depth and low rate limit.
   Retransmissions are often lost repeatedly because standard congestion
   control requires multiple round trips to reduce the rate below the
   policed rate.

   Example: (small) degree of reordering.  Consider a common reordering
   event: a window of packets are sent as (P1, P2, P3).  P1 and P2 carry
   a full payload of MSS octets, but P3 has only a 1-octet payload due
   to application-limited behavior.  Suppose the sender has detected
   reordering previously (e.g., by implementing the algorithm in
   [REORDER-DETECT]) and thus RACK.reo_wnd is min_RTT/4.  Now P3 is
   reordered and delivered first, before P1 and P2.  As long as P1 and
   P2 are delivered within min_RTT/4, RACK will not consider P1 and P2
   lost.  But if P1 and P2 are delivered outside the reordering window,
   then RACK will still falsely mark P1 and P2 lost.  We discuss how to
   reduce the false positives in the end of this section.

   The examples above show that RACK is particularly useful when the
   sender is limited by the application, which is common for
   interactive, request/response traffic.  Similarly, RACK still works
   when the sender is limited by the receive window, which is common for
   applications that use the receive window to throttle the sender.

5.2.  Disadvantages

   RACK requires the sender to record the transmission time of each
   packet sent at a clock granularity of one millisecond or finer.  TCP
   implementations that record this already for RTT estimation do not
   require any new per-packet state.  But implementations that are not
   yet recording packet transmission times will need to add per-packet
   internal state (commonly either 4 or 8 octets per packet) to track
   transmission times.  In contrast, the conventional approach requires
   one variable to track number of duplicate ACK threshold.




Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


5.3.  Adjusting the reordering window

   RACK uses a reordering window of min_rtt / 4.  It uses the minimum
   RTT to accommodate reordering introduced by packets traversing
   slightly different paths (e.g., router-based parallelism schemes) or
   out-of-order deliveries in the lower link layer (e.g., wireless links
   using link-layer retransmission).  Alternatively, RACK can use the
   smoothed RTT used in RTT estimation [RFC6298].  However, smoothed RTT
   can be significantly inflated by orders of magnitude due to
   congestion and buffer-bloat, which would result in an overly
   conservative reordering window and slow loss detection.  Furthermore,
   RACK uses a quarter of minimum RTT because Linux TCP uses the same
   factor in its implementation to delay Early Retransmit [RFC5827] to
   reduce spurious loss detections in the presence of reordering, and
   experience shows that this seems to work reasonably well.

   One potential improvement is to further adapt the reordering window
   by measuring the degree of reordering in time, instead of packet
   distances.  But that requires storing the delivery timestamp of each
   packet.  Some scoreboard implementations currently merge SACKed
   packets together to support TSO (TCP Segmentation Offload) for faster
   scoreboard indexing.  Supporting per-packet delivery timestamps is
   difficult in such implementations.  However, we acknowledge that the
   current metric can be improved by further research.

5.4.  Relationships with other loss recovery algorithms

   The primary motivation of RACK is to ultimately provide a simple and
   general replacement for some of the standard loss recovery algorithms
   [RFC5681][RFC6675][RFC5827][RFC4653] and nonstandard ones
   [FACK][THIN-STREAM].  While RACK can be a supplemental loss detection
   on top of these algorithms, this is not necessary, because the RACK
   implicitly subsumes most of them.

   [RFC5827][RFC4653][THIN-STREAM] dynamically adjusts the duplicate ACK
   threshold based on the current or previous flight sizes.  RACK takes
   a different approach, by using only one ACK event and a reordering
   window.  RACK can be seen as an extended Early Retransmit [RFC5827]
   without a FlightSize limit but with an additional reordering window.
   [FACK] considers an original packet to be lost when its sequence
   range is sufficiently far below the highest SACKed sequence.  In some
   sense RACK can be seen as a generalized form of FACK that operates in
   time space instead of sequence space, enabling it to better handle
   reordering, application-limited traffic, and lost retransmissions.

   Nevertheless RACK is still an experimental algorithm.  Since the
   oldest loss detection algorithm, the 3 duplicate ACK threshold
   [RFC5681], has been standardized and widely deployed, we RECOMMEND



Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


   TCP implementations use both RACK and the algorithm specified in
   Section 3.2 in [RFC5681] for compatibility.

   RACK is compatible with and does not interfere with the the standard
   RTO [RFC6298], RTO-restart [RTO-RESTART], F-RTO [RFC5682] and Eifel
   algorithms [RFC3522].  This is because RACK only detects loss by
   using ACK events.  It neither changes the timer calculation nor
   detects spurious timeouts.

   Furthermore, RACK naturally works well with Tail Loss Probe [TLP]
   because a tail loss probe solicit seither an ACK or SACK, which can
   be used by RACK to detect more losses.  RACK can be used to relax
   TLP's requirement for using FACK and retransmitting the the highest-
   sequenced packet, because RACK is agnostic to packet sequence
   numbers, and uses transmission time instead.  Thus TLP can be
   modified to retransmit the first unacknowledged packet, which can
   improve application latency.

5.5.  Interaction with congestion control

   RACK intentionally decouples loss detection from congestion control.
   RACK only detects losses; it does not modify the congestion control
   algorithm [RFC5681][RFC6937].  However, RACK may detect losses
   earlier or later than the conventional duplicate ACK threshold
   approach does.  A packet marked lost by RACK SHOULD NOT be
   retransmitted until congestion control deems this appropriate (e.g.
   using [RFC6937]).

   RACK is applicable for both fast recovery and recovery after a
   retransmission timeout (RTO) in [RFC5681].  The distinction between
   fast recovery or RTO recovery is not necessary because RACK is purely
   based on the transmission time order of packets.  When a packet
   retransmitted by RTO is acknowledged, RACK will mark any unacked
   packet sent sufficiently prior to the RTO as lost, because at least
   one RTT has elapsed since these packets were sent.

6.  Security Considerations

   RACK does not change the risk profile for TCP.

   An interesting scenario is ACK-splitting attacks [SCWA99]: for an
   MSS-size packet sent, the receiver or the attacker might send MSS
   ACKs that SACK or acknowledge one additional byte per ACK.  This
   would not fool RACK.  RACK.xmit_time would not advance because all
   the sequences of the packet are transmitted at the same time (carry
   the same transmission timestamp).  In other words, SACKing only one
   byte of a packet or SACKing the packet in entirety have the same
   effect on RACK.



Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

8.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to thank Matt Mathis for his insights in FACK that
   inspired this work.  Nandita Dukkipati, Eric Dumazet, Van Jacobson,
   Ian Swett, and Jana Iyengar contributed to the algorithm and the
   implementations in TCP and QUIC.  We thank the authors of RFC3517 for
   a great document on an excellent loss recovery algorithm that this
   draft is trying to improve upon.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2018]  Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "TCP Selective Acknowledgment
              Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.

   [RFC6937]  Mathis, M., Dukkipati, N., and Y. Cheng, "Proportional
              Rate Reduction for TCP", May 2013.

   [RFC4737]  Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
              S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
              November 2006.

   [RFC6675]  Blanton, E., Allman, M., Wang, L., Jarvinen, I., Kojo, M.,
              and Y. Nishida, "A Conservative Loss Recovery Algorithm
              Based on Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) for TCP",
              RFC 6675, August 2012.

   [RFC6298]  Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
              "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298, June
              2011.

   [RFC5827]  Allman, M., Ayesta, U., Wang, L., Blanton, J., and P.
              Hurtig, "Early Retransmit for TCP and Stream Control
              Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 5827, April 2010.






Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


   [RFC5682]  Sarolahti, P., Kojo, M., Yamamoto, K., and M. Hata,
              "Forward RTO-Recovery (F-RTO): An Algorithm for Detecting
              Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP", RFC 5682,
              September 2009.

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

   [RFC5681]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.

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

   [RFC7323]  Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R.
              Scheffenegger, "TCP Extensions for High Performance",
              September 2014.

9.2.  Informative References

   [FACK]     Mathis, M. and M. Jamshid, "Forward acknowledgement:
              refining TCP congestion control", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
              Communication Review, Volume 26, Issue 4, Oct. 1996. ,
              1996.

   [TLP]      Dukkipati, N., Cardwell, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
              "Tail Loss Probe (TLP): An Algorithm for Fast Recovery of
              Tail Drops", draft-dukkipati-tcpm-tcp-loss-probe-01 (work
              in progress), August 2013.

   [RTO-RESTART]
              Hurtig, P., Brunstrom, A., Petlund, A., and M. Welzl, "TCP
              and SCTP RTO Restart", draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-08 (work
              in progress), June 2015.

   [REORDER-DETECT]
              Zimmermann, A., Schulte, L., Wolff, C., and A. Hannemann,
              "Detection and Quantification of Packet Reordering with
              TCP", draft-zimmermann-tcpm-reordering-detection-02 (work
              in progress), November 2014.

   [THIN-STREAM]
              Petlund, A., Evensen, K., Griwodz, C., and P. Halvorsen,
              "TCP enhancements for interactive thin-stream
              applications", NOSSDAV , 2008.





Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    RACK                      October 2015


   [SCWA99]   Savage, S., Cardwell, N., Wetherall, D., and T. Anderson,
              "TCP Congestion Control With a Misbehaving Receiver", ACM
              Computer Communication Review, 29(5) , 1999.

Authors' Addresses

   Yuchung Cheng
   Google, Inc
   1600 Amphitheater Parkway
   Mountain View, California  93117
   USA

   Email: ycheng@google.com


   Neal Cardwell
   Google, Inc
   76 Ninth Avenue
   New York, NY  10011
   USA

   Email: ncardwell@google.com





























Cheng & Cardwell         Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 12]


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