[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5690
Internet Engineering Task Force S. Floyd
INTERNET-DRAFT ICIR
Intended status: Experimental A. Arcia
Expires: 13 December 2007 D. Ros
ENST Bretagne
J. Iyengar
Connecticut College
13 June 2007
Adding Acknowledgement Congestion Control to TCP
draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-01.txt
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 13 December 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Floyd [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
Abstract
This document adds an optional congestion control mechanism for
acknowledgement traffic (ACKs) to TCP. The document specifies an
end-to-end acknowledgement congestion control mechanism for TCP that
uses participation from both TCP hosts, the TCP data sender and the
TCP data receiver. The TCP data sender detects lost and ECN-marked
ACK packets, and tells the TCP data receiver the ACK Ratio R to use
to respond to the congestion on the reverse path from the data
receiver to the data sender. The TCP data receiver sends roughly one
ACK packet for every R data packets received. This mechanism is
based on the acknowledgement congestion control in DCCP's CCID 2.
This acknowledgement congestion control mechanism is being proposed
as an experimental mechanism for TCP for evaluation by the network
community.
Floyd [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................4
2. Conventions and Terminology .....................................5
3. Overview ........................................................6
4. Related Work ....................................................6
5. Acknowledgement Congestion Control ..............................8
5.1. Negotiating the Use of ACK Congestion Control ..............8
5.2. The TCP ACK Ratio Option ...................................9
5.3. The Receiver: Implementing the ACK Ratio ...................9
5.4. The Sender: Determining Lost or Marked ACK Packets ........10
5.5. The Sender: Adjusting the ACK Ratio .......................11
5.6. The Receiver: Sending ACKs for Out-of-Order Data Segments
................................................................12
5.7. The Sender: Response to ACK Packets .......................12
5.8. Possible Additions: Receiver Bounds on the Ack Ratio ......14
6. Possible Complications .........................................14
6.1. Possible Complications: Delayed Acknowledgements ..........14
6.2. Possible Complications: Duplicate Acknowledgements. .......14
6.3. Possible Complications: Two-Way Traffic. ..................15
6.4. Possible Complications: Reordering of ACK Packets. ........15
6.5. Possible Complications: Abrupt Changes in the ACK Path. ...15
6.6. Possible Complications: Corruption. .......................15
6.7. Possible Complications: ACKs That Don't Contribute to Con-
gestion. .......................................................15
6.8. Other Issues ..............................................18
7. Evaluating ACK Congestion Control ..............................19
8. Measurements of ACK Traffic and Congestion .....................19
9. Acknowledgement Congestion Control in CCID 2 ...................19
10. Security Considerations .......................................20
11. IANA Considerations ...........................................21
12. Conclusions ...................................................21
13. Acknowledgements ..............................................21
Normative References ..............................................21
Informative References ............................................22
Full Copyright Statement ..........................................23
Intellectual Property .............................................24
Floyd [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
TO BE DELETED BY THE RFC EDITOR UPON PUBLICATION:
Changes from draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-00.txt:
* Added a discussion of environments where the reverse path
is congested, but the TCP ACK traffic does not significantly
contribute to that congestion. In this case, the goal is
to minimize the negative impack of AckCC on TCP performance.
Feedback from Armando Caro.
* In Section 5.7, added that when ABC is used with Aggregate
Congestion Control, and rate-based pacing is also used, the sender
MAY increase cwnd by more than 2 MSS.
Feedback from Armando Caro.
* Added a section about measurements of ACK traffic and congestion.
Feedback from Armando Caro.
* Added a section on the possibility of a TCP receiver-imposed
lower bound on the ACK Ratio. Suggested by Mark Allman.
* Added to the discussion of the mimumum ACK sending rate.
Suggested by Mark Allman.
* Added a note that if the TCP receiver doesn't sent an ACK for
every duplicate data packet, the sender's Fast Recovery
procedure will have to be modified to take this into
account. Feedback from Mark Allman.
* Added a discussion of evaluating ACK Congestion Control.
From feedback from Mark Allman.
* Some general editing in response to feedback from Mark Allman.
END OF SECTION TO BE DELETED.
1. Introduction
This documents adds an optional congestion control mechanism to TCP
for acknowledgements (ACKs). This mechanism is based on the
acknowledgement congestion control in DCCP's CCID 2 [RFC4340],
[RFC4341], which is a successor to the TCP acknowledgement congestion
control mechanism proposed by Balakrishnan et at. in [BPK97].
In this document we use the termininology of senders and receivers,
with the sender sending data traffic, and the receiver sending
acknowledgement traffic in response. In CCID 2's acknowledgement
congestion control, specified in Section 6.1 of [RFC4341], the
Floyd [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
receiver uses an ACK Ratio R reported to it by the sender, sending
roughly one ACK packet for every R data packets received. The CCID 2
sender keeps the acknowledgement rate roughly TCP friendly by
monitoring the acknowledgement stream for lost and marked ACK packets
and modifying the ACK Ratio accordingly. For every RTT containing an
ACK congestion event (that is, a lost or marked ACK packet), the
sender halves the acknowledgement rate by doubling the ACK Ratio; for
every RTT containing no ACK congestion event, the sender additively
increases the acknowledgement rate through gradual decreases in the
ACK Ratio.
The goal of this document is to explore a similar congestion control
mechanism for acknowledgement traffic for TCP. The goal is for the
TCP sender to monitor the packet drop rate for ACK packets, and to
respond to a high ACK packet drop rate by instructing the receiver to
reduce the sending rate for ACK packets. The assumption is that in
some environments with congestion on the reverse path, reducing the
sending rate for ACK traffic traversing the congested path can help
to reduce the congestion itself, in turn reducing the packet drop
rates for the ACK traffic. For those environments where the reverse
path is congested but where TCP ACK traffic does not appreciably
contribute to that aggregate congestion, the goal is for TCP's ACK
congestion control to have a minimal negative effect on the
performance of the TCP connection.
Adding acknowledgement congestion control as an option in TCP
requires the following:
* An agreement from the TCP hosts on the use of ACK congestion
control. The TCP hosts use a new TCP option, the ACK-Congestion-
Control-Permitted Option.
* A mechanism for the TCP sender to detect lost and ECN-marked pure
acknowledgement packets.
* A mechanism for adjusting the ACK Ratio. The TCP sender adjusts
the ACK Ratio as specified in Section 6.1.2 of [RFC4341].
* A method for the TCP sender to inform the TCP receiver of a new
value for the ACK Ratio. The TCP sender uses a new TCP option, the
ACK Ratio Option.
2. Conventions and Terminology
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]. MSS
refers to the Maximum Segment Size.
Floyd [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
3. Overview
This section gives a non-normative overview of acknowledgement
congestion control for TCP.
[Graphics will be added.]
During connection initiation, TCP host B sends an ACK-Congestion-
Control-Permitted option on its SYN or SYN/ACK packet. This allows
TCP host A (now called the sender) to send instructions to TCP host B
(now called the receiver) about the Ack Ratio to use in responding to
data packets.
Also during connection initiation, TCP host A sends an ACK-
Congestion-Control-Permitted option on its SYN or SYN/ACK packet. In
combination with TCP host B's sending of an ACK-Congestion-Control-
Permitted option, this allows TCP host B to send its ACK packets as
ECN-Capable.
The TCP receiver starts with an ACK Ratio of two, generally sending
one ACK packet for every two data packets received.
The TCP sender detects lost or ECN-marked ACK packets from the TCP
receiver, and at some point sends an ACK Ratio option of three to the
receiver. The TCP receiver changes to an ACK Ratio of three,
generally sending one ACK packet for every three data packets. The
TCP sender uses Appropriate Byte Counting and rate-based pacing in
responding to these ACK packets.
The TCP sender detects fewer lost ACK packets, and at some point
sends an ACK Ratio option of two to the TCP receiver. The TCP
receiver changes back to an ACK Ratio of two, generally sending one
ACK packet for every two data packets.
4. Related Work
The goal of the mechanism proposed in this document is to control
pure ACK traffic on the path from the TCP data receiver to the TCP
data sender. Note that the approach outlined here is an end-to-end
one (as is the approach followed by DCCP's CCID 2 [RFC4341]), but it
may also take advantage of explicit congestion information from the
network conveyed by ECN [RFC3168], if available. The ECN
specification [RFC3168, section 6.1.4] prohibits a TCP receiver from
setting the ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoints in IP packets carrying pure
ACKs, but *only* as long as the receiver does *not* implement any
form of ACK congestion control.
There exist several papers dealing with controlling congestion in the
Floyd [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
reverse path of a TCP connection, especially in the context of
networks with bandwidth asymmetry. Some of these proposals require
explicit support from routers or middleboxes, whereas others are
"pure" end-to-end schemes.
Balakrishnan et al. ([BPK97]) describe the use of ECN to detect
congestion in the return path, in order to reduce the sending rate of
ACKs. The use of a RED queue in the reverse path allows for marking
of ACK packets. The sender echoes back ECN congestion marks to the
receiver. The receiver keeps an ACK ratio d (called the "delayed-ACK
factor"), specifying the number of data segments that have to be
received before the receiver sends a new ACK. The ACK ratio d is
managed using multiplicative-increase, additive-decrease; upon
reception of a congestion mark, the receiver doubles the value of d
(hence dividing the ACK sending rate by two). The ACK ratio
decreases linearly for each RTT in which no ECN-marked ACKs are
received. Multiple congestion marks received in an RTT are treated
as a single congestion event, i.e., d can be doubled at most once per
RTT. The TCP timestamp option is used to keep track of the RTT
values.
In [TJW00], Tam Ming-Chit et al. propose a receiver-based method for
calculating an "appropriate" number of ACKs per congestion window
(cwnd) of data, in order to alleviate congestion on the reverse path.
The sender's cwnd is estimated at the receiver by counting the number
of received packets per RTT (which also has to be estimated by the
receiver). From this estimate, a simple algorithm is used to compute
the number of ACKs to be sent per cwnd. The algorithm enforces a
lower bound on the number of ACKs per cwnd, aiming at minimizing the
probability of timeout at the sender due to ACK loss. Similarly, the
ACK ratio is upper-bounded so as to avoid excessive ACK delay.
ACK filtering (AF) [BPK97] from Balakrishnan et al. is a router-based
technique that tries to reduce the number of ACKs sent over the
congested return link. With AF, an arriving ACK may replace
preceding, older ACKs at the bottleneck queue. An aggressive
replacement policy might guarantee that at most one ACK per
connection is waiting in the queue, alleviating congestion. However,
as in other proposals, care must be taken to avoid sender timeouts in
case the (too few) ACKs resulting from the filtering get lost. The
idea of filtering ACKs has been extended in [YMH03] to deal with SACK
information.
Blandford et al. [BGG+07] propose an end-to-end, receiver-oriented
scheme called "smartacking". The algorithm is based upon the
receiver monitoring the inter-segment arrival time for data packets
and adapting the ACK sending rate in response. When the bottleneck
link is underutilized, ACKs are sent frequently (up to one ACK per
Floyd [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
received segment) to promote fast growth of the congestion window.
On the other hand, when the bottleneck is close to full utilization,
the algorithm tries to reduce control traffic overhead and slow
congestion window growth by generating ACKs at the minimum rate
needed to keep the data pipe full.
Reducing the number of ACKs (or, equivalently, increasing the amount
of bytes acknowledged by each ACK) can increase the burstiness of the
TCP sender. Hence, any mechanism as those cited above should be
coupled with a burst mitigation technique, Rate-Based Pacing, that
paces the sending of data segments [AB05] [ASA00] [BPK97].
Aweya et al. [AOM02] present a middlebox-based approach for
mitigating data packet bursts and for controlling the uplink ACK
congestion. The main idea is to perform pacing on ACK segments on an
edge device close to the sender, so as to control the ACK arrival
rate at the sender.
Unlike some of the related work cited above, in this document we are
proposing an end-to-end ACK congestion control mechanism that
controls congestion on the reverse path (the path followed by the ACK
traffic) by detecting and responding to marked or dropped ACK
packets.
5. Acknowledgement Congestion Control
5.1. Negotiating the Use of ACK Congestion Control
The TCP end-points negotiate the use of ACK Congestion Control
(ACKCC) with a TCP option, the ACK-Congestion-Control-Permitted
Option. The option number will be allocated by IANA.
The ACK-Congestion-Control-Permitted option can only be sent on
packets that have the SYN bit set. If TCP end-point A receives an
ACK-Congestion-Control-Permitted option from TCP end-point B, then
the TCP end-points MAY use ACK Congestion Control on the pure
acknowledgements sent from B to A. This means that TCP end-point A
MAY send ACK Ratio values to TCP end-point B, for TCP end-point B to
use on pure acknowledgement packets.
Similarly, if TCP end-point B receives an ACK-Congestion-Control-
Permitted option from TCP end-point A, then the TCP end-points MAY
use ACK Congestion Control on the pure acknowledgements sent from A
to B.
If TCP end-point B receives an ACK-Congestion-Control-Permitted
option from TCP end-point A and also sent an ACK-Congestion-Control-
Permitted option to TCP end-point A, then TCP end-point B can send
Floyd [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
its ACK packets as ECN-Capable.
TCP ACK-Congestion-Control-Permitted Option:
Kind: N
+-----------+-----------+
| Kind=N | Length=2 |
+-----------+-----------+
When ACK Congestion Control is used, the default initial ACK Ratio is
two, with the receiver acknowledging at least every other data
packet.
5.2. The TCP ACK Ratio Option
The sender uses a ACK Ratio TCP Option to communicate the ACK Ratio
value from the sender to the receiver.
TCP ACK Ratio Option:
Kind: N+1
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Kind=N+1 | Length=3 | ACK Ratio |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
The ACK Ratio Option is only sent on data packets. Because TCP uses
reliable delivery for data packets, the TCP sender can tell if the
TCP receiver has received an ACK Ratio Option.
5.3. The Receiver: Implementing the ACK Ratio
With an ACK Ratio of R, the receiver should send one pure ACK for
every R newly received data packets unless the delayed ACK timer
expires first. A receiver could simply maintain a counter that
increments up to R for each new data packet received, and then reset
the counter to zero when an ACK is sent, either pure or piggybacked.
[RFC2581] recommends that the receiver SHOULD acknowledge out-of-
order data packets immediately, sending an immediate duplicate ACK
when it receives a data segment above a gap in the sequence space,
and sending an immediate ACK when it receives a data segment that
fills in all or part of a gap in the sequence space.
When ACK Congestion Control is being used and the ACK Ratio is at
Floyd [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
most two, the TCP receiver MUST acknowledge each out-of-order data
packet immediately. For an ACK Ratio greater than two, Section 5.6
specifies in detail the receiver's behavior for sending ACKs for out-
of-order data packets.
5.4. The Sender: Determining Lost or Marked ACK Packets
The TCP data sender uses its knowledge of the ACK Ratio in use by the
receiver to infer when an ACK packet has been lost.
Because the TCP sender knows the ACK Ratio R in use by the receiver,
the TCP sender knows that in the absence of dropped or reordered
acknowledgement packets, each new acknowledgement received will
acknowledge at most R additional data packets. Thus, if the sender
receives an acknowledgement acknowledging more than R data packets,
and does not receive a subsequent acknowledgement acknowledging a
strict subset (with a smaller cumulative acknowledgement, or with the
same cumulative acknowledgement but a strict subset of data
acknowledged in SACK blocks), then the sender can infer that an ACK
packet has been dropped.
Similarly, the TCP sender knows that in the absence of dropped or
delayed data packets from the sender, and in the absence of delayed
acknowledgements due to a timer expiring at the receiver, each new
pure acknowledgement received will acknowledge at least R additional
data packets. In terms of ACK congestion control, the TCP sender
does not have to take any actions when it receives an acknowledgement
acknowledging less than R additional packets.
Out-of-order data packets: If the ACK Ratio is at most two, then the
TCP receiver sends a dupACK for every out-of-order data packet. In
this case, the TCP sender should be able to detect lost DupACK
packets by counting the number of DupACKs that arrive between the
beginning of the loss event and the arrival of the first full or
partial ACK, and comparing this number with the number of DupACKs
that should have arrived (based on the number of packets being ACKed
by the full or partial ACK). Simulations and/or experiments will be
needed to determine whether, in practice, it works for the TCP sender
to assess lost ACK packets during loss events, for an ACK Ratio of at
most two.
If the ACK Ratio is greater than two, the TCP receiver does not send
a dupACK for every out-of-order data packet, as specified in Section
5.6. For simplicity, if the ACK Ratio is greater than two, the TCP
sender does not attempt to detect lost ACK packets during loss events
involving forward-path data traffic. That is, as soon as the sender
infers a packet loss for a forward-path data packet, it stops
detection of ACK loss on the reverse path. The sender waits until a
Floyd [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
new cumulative acknowledgement is received that covers the
retransmitted data, and then restarts detection of ACK loss for
reverse-path traffic.
5.5. The Sender: Adjusting the ACK Ratio
The TCP sender will adjust the ACK Ratio as specified in Section
6.1.2 of [RFC4341], as follows.
The ACK Ratio always meets the following three constraints.
(1) The ACK Ratio is an integer.
(2) The minimum ACK sending rate: The ACK Ratio does not exceed
max(2, cwnd/(K*MSS)), rounded up, for K=2. This ensures that the TCP
receiver sends at least two ACKs for a window of data (for a window
of at least four full-sized segments).
(3) If the congestion window is at least as large as four full-sized
segments, then the ACK Ratio is at least two. In other words, an ACK
Ratio of one is only allowed when the congestion window is at most
three full-sized segments.
The sender changes the ACK Ratio within those constraints as follows.
For each congestion window of data with lost or marked ACK packets,
the ACK Ratio R is doubled; and for each cwnd/(MSS*(R^2 - R))
consecutive congestion windows of data with no lost or marked ACK
packets, the ACK Ratio is decreased by 1. (See Appendix A of RFC
4341 for the derivation. Note that Appendix A of RFC 4341 assumes a
congestion window W in packets, while we use cwnd in bytes.) As
stated in the previous section, when the ACK Ratio is greater than
two the sender does not attempt to detect lost ACK packets during
loss events for forward-path traffic.
For a constant congestion window, these modifications to the ACK
ratio give an ACK sending rate that is roughly TCP friendly. Of
course, cwnd usually varies over time; the dynamics will be rather
complex, but roughly TCP friendly. We recommend that the sender use
the most recent value of cwnd when determining whether to decrease
ACK Ratio by one.
The frequency of ACK Ratio negotiations: The sender need not keep the
ACK Ratio completely up to date. For instance, it MAY rate-limit ACK
Ratio renegotiations to once every four or five round-trip times, or
to once every second or two. The sender SHOULD NOT attempt to change
the ACK Ratio more than once per round-trip time. Additionally, it
MAY enforce a minimum ACK Ratio of two, or it MAY set ACK Ratio to
one for half-connections with persistent congestion windows of 1 or 2
Floyd [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
packets.
The minimum ACK sending rate: From rule (2) above, the TCP receiver
always sends at least K=2 ACKs for a window of data, even in the face
of very heavy congestion on the reverse path. We would note,
however, that if congestion is sufficiently heavy, all the ack
packets are dropped, and then the sender falls back on an
exponentially backed-off timeout. Thus, if congestion is sufficiently
heavy on the reverse path, then the sender reduces its sending rate
on the forward path, which reduces the rate on the reverse path as
well. One possibility would be to use a higher minimum ACK sending
rate, adding a constant upper bound on the ACK Ratio. That is, if
the ACK Ratio also had an upper bound of J, independent of cwnd, then
the receiver would always send at least one ACK for every J data
packets, regardless of the level of congestion on the reverse path.
5.6. The Receiver: Sending ACKs for Out-of-Order Data Segments
RFC 2581 says that "a TCP receiver SHOULD send an immediate duplicate
ACK when an out-of-order segment arrives." After three duplicate
ACKs are received, the TCP sender infers a packet loss and implements
Fast Retransmit and Fast Recovery, retransmitting the missing packet.
When the ACK Ratio is at most two, the TCP receiver SHOULD still send
an immediate duplicate ACK when an out-of-order segment arrives.
When the ACK Ratio is greater than two, the TCP receiver still SHOULD
send an immediate duplicate ACK for each of the first three out-of-
order segments that arrive in a reordering event. (We define a
reordering event at the receiver as beginning when an out-of-order
segment arrives, and ending when the receiver holds no more out-of-
order segments.) However, when the ACK Ratio is greater than two,
after the first three duplicate ACKs have been sent, the TCP receiver
should perform ACK congestion control on the remaining ACKs to be
sent during the current reordering event. That is, after the first
three duplicate ACKs have been sent, the TCP receiver SHOULD send an
ACK for every R out-of-order segments, instead of sending an ACK for
every out-of-order segment. [We note that the Fast Recovery
procedure of the TCP sender might have to be modified to take this
change into account.] In addition, a receiver MUST NOT withhold an
ACK for more than 500 ms.
5.7. The Sender: Response to ACK Packets
The use of a large ACK Ratio can generate line rate data bursts at a
TCP sender. When the ACK Ratio is greater than two, the TCP sender
SHOULD use some form of burst mitigation, or rate-based pacing for
sending data packets in response to a single acknowledgement. The
Floyd [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
use of rate-based pacing will be limited by the timer granularity at
the TCP sender.
We note that the interaction of ACK congestion control and burst
mitigation schemes needs further study.
Byte counting at the sender: In addition to the impact of a large ACK
Ratio on the burstiness of the TCP sender's sending rate, a large ACK
Ratio can also affect the data sending rate by slowing down the
increase of the congestion window cwnd. As specified in RFC 2581, in
slow-start the TCP sender increases cwnd by one full-sized segment
for each new ACK received (in this context, a "new ACK" is an ACK
that acknowledges new data). RFC 2581 also specifies that in
congestion avoidance, the TCP sender increases cwnd by roughly 1/cwnd
full-sized segments for each ACK received, resulting in an increase
in cwnd of roughly one full-sized segment per round-trip time. In
this case, the use of a large ACK Ratio would slow down the increase
of the sender's congestion window.
RFC 2581 notes that during congestion avoidance it is also acceptable
to count the number of bytes acknowledged by new ACKs, and to
increase cwnd based on the number of bytes acknowledged, rather than
on the number of new ACKs received. Thus, the sender SHOULD use this
form of byte counting with Acknowledgement Congestion Control, so
that the Acknowledgement Congestion Control doesn't slow down the
window increases for the data traffic sent by the sender. Because
rate-based pacing should be used with Acknowledgement Congestion
Control, as recommended earlier in this section, the TCP sender MAY
increase the congestion window by more than two MSS for each ACK.
We note that for Appropriate Byte Counting (ABC) as specified in
[RFC3465], during Slow-Start the sender is allowed to increase the
congestion window by at most two MSS for each ACK. It has not yet
been determined whether, with Acknowledgement Congestion Control, the
TCP sender could use ABC during Slow-Start. If ABC is used with
Acknowledgement Congestion Control, then when the TCP sender is in
slow-start and the Ack Ratio is greater than two, the TCP sender MAY
increase the congestion window by more that two MSS in response to a
single ACK.
Inferring lost data packets: As cited earlier, RFC 2581 infers that a
packet has been lost after it receives three duplicate
acknowledgements. Because ACK Congestion Control is only used when
there is congestion on the reverse path, after a packet loss one or
more of the three duplicate ACKs sent by the receiver could be lost
on the reverse path, and the receiver might wait until it has
received R more out-of-order segments before sending the next
duplicate ACK. All this could slow down Fast Recovery and Fast
Floyd [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
Retransmit quite a bit. To reduce the potential delay in detecting a
lost packet, we add that when SACK is used, a TCP sender SHOULD use
the information in the SACK option to detect when the receiver has
received at least three out-of-order data packets, and to initiate
Fast Retransmit and Fast Recovery in this case, even if the TCP
sender has not yet received three dup ACKs.
5.8. Possible Additions: Receiver Bounds on the Ack Ratio
It has been suggested that in some environments, the TCP receiver
might want to set lower bounds on the ACK Ratio. For example, the
TCP receiver might know from configuration or from past experience
that the bandwidth on the return path is limited, and might want to
set a lower bound (greater than two) on the ACK Ratio R. If this is
included, this would require a TCP Option from the TCP receiver to
the TCP sender reporting the lower bound on the ACK Ratio. Care
would also be needed so that the lower bound on the ACK Ratio was
only in effect when the TCP sender's congestion window was
sufficiently high.
6. Possible Complications
6.1. Possible Complications: Delayed Acknowledgements
The receiver could send a delayed acknowledgement acknowledging a
single packet, even when the ACK Ratio is two or more.
This should not cause false positives (when the TCP sender infers a
loss when no loss happened). The TCP sender only infers that a pure
ACK packet has been lost when no data packet has been lost, and an
ACK packet arrives acknowledging more than R new packets.
Delayed acknowledgements could, however, cause false negatives, with
the TCP sender unable to detect the loss of an ack packet sent as a
delayed acknowedgement. False negatives seem acceptable; this would
result in approximate ACK congestion control, which would be better
than no ACK congestion control at all. In particular, when this form
of false negative occurs, it is because the receiver is sending
acknowledgements at such a low rate that it is sending delayed
acknowledgements, rather than acknowledging at least R data packets
with each acknowledgement.
6.2. Possible Complications: Duplicate Acknowledgements.
As discussed in Section 5.3, RFC 2581 states that "a TCP receiver
SHOULD send an immediate duplicate ACK when an out-of-order segment
arrives," and that "a TCP receiver SHOULD send an immediate ACK when
Floyd [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
the incoming segment fills in all or part of a gap in the sequence
space" [RFC2581]. When ACK Congestion Control is used, the TCP
receiver instead uses the guidelines from Section 5.6 to govern the
sending of duplicate ACKs. More work would be useful to evaluate the
advantages and disadvantages of this approach in terms of the
potential delay in triggering Fast Retransmit, and to explore
alternate possibilities.
6.3. Possible Complications: Two-Way Traffic.
In a TCP connection with two-way traffic, the receiver could send
some pure ACK packets, and some acknowledgements piggy-backed on data
packets. In this case, how well can the TCP sender infer when pure
ACK packets have been lost? The receiver would still follow the rule
of only sending a pure ACK packet when there is a need for a delayed
ack, or there are R new data packets to acknowledge.
6.4. Possible Complications: Reordering of ACK Packets.
It is possible for ACK packets to be reordered on the reverse path.
The TCP sender could either use a parallel mechanism to the dupACK
threshold to infer when an ACK packet has been lost, as with TCP, or,
more robustly, the TCP sender could wait an entire round-trip time
before inferring that an ACK packet has been lost [RFC4653].
6.5. Possible Complications: Abrupt Changes in the ACK Path.
What happens when there are abrupt changes in the reverse path, such
as from vertical handovers? Can there be any problems that would be
worse than those experienced by a TCP connection that is not using
ACK congestion control?
6.6. Possible Complications: Corruption.
As with data packets, it is possible for ACK packets to be dropped in
the network due to corruption rather than congestion. The current
assumption of ACK congestion control is that all losses should be
taken as indications of congestion. When there is some better answer
for corrupted TCP data packets, the same solution hopefully would
apply to corrupted ACK packets as well.
6.7. Possible Complications: ACKs That Don't Contribute to Congestion.
It is posssible for the ACK packets in a TCP connection to traverse a
congested path where ACK packets are dropped, but where the ACK
packets themselves don't significantly contribute to the congestion
on the path. In scenarios where ACK packets are dropped but where
ACK traffic doesn't make a significant contribution of the congestion
Floyd [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
on the path, the use of ACK Congestion Control would not contribute
to reducing the aggregate congestion on the path. In this case, one
goal is to minimize the negative impact of ACK Congestion Control on
the overall performance of the TCP connection.
J TCP conns. link L -> J TCP conns.
data -> |---| |---| <- acks
<-------------> | | | | <------------->
| | <-------------> | |
<-------------> | | | | <------------->
K TCP conns. |---| |---| K TCP conns.
acks -> <- link L1 <- data
A scenario with J forward and K reverse TCP connections.
To explore the relative contribution of ACK traffic on congestion, it
is useful to consider a simple scenario with a congested
unidirectional link L carrying data traffic from J TCP connections
(the forward TCP connections) and ACK traffic from K TCP connections
(the reverse TCP connections. We assume that all TCP connections
have the same round-trip time R and the same data packet size S of
1500 bytes. We further assume that all of the forward TCP
connections have the same data packet drop rate p and the same
congestion window W, and that all of the reverse TCP connections have
the same congestion window W1 and the same ACK packet drop rate p1.
The J TCP connections each use a bandwidth on link L of 1500*W/R
bytes per second, and the K TCP connections, without ACK Congestion
Control, each use an bandwidth on link L of 40*(W1/2)/R bytes per
second. This gives a ratio of 75*(J/K)*(W/W1) for TCP data bandwidth
to TCP ACK bandwidth on link L. The ratio J/K is the ratio between
the number of forward and reverse TCP connections on link L, and
could have a wide range of values (e.g., large for an access link
from a web server, and small for an access link to a web server).
For this scenario, the ratio W/W1 is largely a function of the
different levels of congestion on the forward and reverse paths.
To explore the possibilities, we will consider some of the range of
congestion control mechanisms for the congested link. First, we
consider scenarios where the limitation on the congested path is in
the link bandwidth in bytes per second.
Cases (1), (2), (3), (5), and (7) below represent the best scenarios
for ACK Congestion Control, where the fraction of packet drops for
TCP ACK packets roughly matchs the TCP ACK packets' contribution to
congestion. [In several of these cases this is at best a rough match
because the data packets are a factor in the bandwidth and in the
Floyd [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
queue limitations, while the TCP ACK packets are only a factor in the
queue limitations.] Cases (4) and (8) below represent problematic
scenarios where the fraction of packet drops for TCP ACK packets is
much higher than the TCP ACK packets' contribution to congestion.
Case (6) below represents scenarios where ACK Congestion Control
would not be effective because it would not be invoked. In the
scenarios in case (6), the fraction of packet drops for TCP ACK
packets would be much smaller than the TCP ACK packets' contribution
to congestion.
(1) The Drop-Tail queue for link L is measured in packets. In this
case, the congested queue can accomodate N packets, regardless of
packet size, there is a limitation of both bandwidth in bytes per
second and also in queue space in packets, and large data packets and
small TCP ACK packets should see similar packet drop rates. Although
TCP ACK packets most likely aren't a major factor in the bandwidth
limitation, they can be a significant contribution to the limitation
of queue space. So, while the drop rate for ACK packets could be
high in times of congestion, the ACK packets are contributing to that
congestion somewhat by using scarce buffer space.
(2) The Drop-Tail queue is measured in bytes. In this case, the
congested queue can accomodate M bytes of packets, and TCP ACK
packets don't make a significant contribution to either the bandwidth
limitation or to the limitation in queue space. It is also the case
that in this scenario, even if there is heavy congestion, the drop
rate for TCP ACK packets should be small (because small ACK packets
can often find space on the congested queue when large data packets
can't find space). In this case, ACK Congestion Control should not
present any problems; the TCP ACK packets aren't contributing
significantly to congestion, and aren't experiencing significant
packet drop rates.
(3) The RED queue is in packet mode, and is measured in packets.
This is similar to case (1) above. Because the queue is measured in
packets, small TCP ACK packets contribute to the limitation in queue
space, but not to the limitation in link bandwidth. Because the
queue is in packet mode, large data packets and small TCP ACK packets
should see similar packet drop rates.
(4) The RED queue is in packet mode, but is measured in bytes.
Because the queue is measured in bytes, small TCP ACK packets don't
contribute significantly to either the limitation in queue space or
to the limitation in link bandwidth. Because the queue is in packet
mode, large data packets and small TCP ACK packets should see similar
packet drop rates. If it existed, this case would be problematic,
because the TCP ACK packets would not be contributing significantly
to the congestion, but they would see a similar drop rate as the
Floyd [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
large data packets that are contributing to congestion.
(5) The RED queue is in byte mode, and is measured in bytes. This is
similar to case (2) above. Because the queue is measured in bytes,
small TCP ACK packets don't contribute significantly to either the
limitation in queue space or to the limitation in link bandwidth. At
the same time, because the queue is in byte mode, small TCP ACK
packets see much smaller packet drop rates that those of large data
packets.
(6) The RED queue is in byte mode, but is measured in packets.
Because the queue is measured in packets, small TCP ACK packets
contribute to the limitation in queue space, but not to the
limitation in link bandwidth. Because the queue is in byte mode,
small TCP ACK packets see much smaller packet drop rates that those
of large data packets. If this case existed, TCP ACK packets would
contribute somewhat to congestion, but would see a much smaller
packet drop rate than that of large data packets.
Next, we consider scenarios where the limitation on the congested
link is in CPU cycles at the router in packets per second, not in
bandwidth in bytes per second.
(7) The CPU load imposed by TCP ACK packets is similar to the load
imposed by other packets (e.g., TCP data packets). ACK Congestion
Control would be useful in this scenario, particularly if TCP ACK
packets saw the same packet drop rates as TCP data packets.
(8) The CPU load imposed by TCP ACK packets is much less than the
load imposed by other packets (e.g., TCP data packets). If TCP ACK
packets saw a smaller packet drop rate than TCP data packets, then
the TCP ACK packet drop rate would roughly match the TCP ACK packets'
contribution to congestion, and this would be good. If TCP ACK
packets saw the same packet drop rate as TCP data packets, this this
case would be problematic, because the TCP ACK packets would not be
contributing significantly to the congestion, but they would see a
similar drop rate as the large data packets that are contributing to
congestion.
6.8. Other Issues
Are there any problems caused by the combination of two-way traffic
and reordering?
How well would ACK congestion control work without SACK information?
Or shwould SACK be required with ACK congestion control?
Floyd [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
7. Evaluating ACK Congestion Control
Evaluating ACK Congestion Control will have two components: (1)
evaluating the effects of ACK Congestion Control on an individual TCP
connection; and (2) evaluating the effects of ACK Congestion Control
on aggregate traffic (including the effects of ACK Congestion Control
on the aggregate congestion of the path).
The first part, evaluating ACK Congestion Control on the performance
of an individual TCP connection, will have to examine those scenarios
where ACK Congestion Control might help the performance of a TCP
connection, and those scenarios where the use of ACK Congestion
Control might cause problems.
The second part, evaluating the effects of ACK Congestion Control on
aggregate traffic, should consider scenarios where the use of ACK
Congestion Control helps all of the connections sharing a path by
reducing the aggregate congestion on the path. This part should also
see if there are scenarios where ACK Congestion Control causes
problems by increasing the burstiness of aggregate traffic, or by
otherwise changing traffic dynamics.
8. Measurements of ACK Traffic and Congestion
There are a number of studies about the traffic composition on
various links in the Internet, reporting the fraction of bandwidth
used by TCP data and by TCP ACK traffic. [Pointers to be added.]
Are there any studies that show the relative drop rates for TCP data
and ACK traffic, for particular links or for particular TCP
connections?
Are there any studies of congested links that show the fraction of
traffic on the congested link, or in the congested queue, that
consist of TCP ACK packets?
9. Acknowledgement Congestion Control in CCID 2
Rate-based pacing: For CCID 2, RFC 4341 says that "senders MAY use a
form of rate-based pacing when sending multiple data packets
liberated by a single ACK packet, rather than sending all liberated
data packets in a single burst." However, rate-based pacing is not
required in CCID 2.
Increasing the congestion window: For CCID 2, RFC 4341 says that
"when cwnd < ssthresh, meaning that the sender is in slow-start, the
congestion window is increased by one packet for every two newly
acknowledged data packets with ACK Vector State 0 (not ECN-marked),
Floyd [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
up to a maximum of ACK Ratio/2 packets per acknowledgement. This is
a modified form of Appropriate Byte Counting [RFC3465] that is
consistent with TCP's current standard (which does not include byte
counting), but allows CCID 2 to increase as aggressively as TCP when
CCID 2's ACK Ratio is greater than the default value of two. When
cwnd >= ssthresh, the congestion window is increased by one packet
for every window of data acknowledged without lost or marked
packets."
10. Security Considerations
What are the sender's incentives to cheat on ACK congestion control?
What are the receiver's incentives to cheat? What are the avenues
open for cheating?
As long as ACK congestion control is optional, neither host can be
forced to use ACK congestion control if it doesn't want to. So ACK
congestion control will only be used if the sender or receiver have
some chance of receiving some benefit.
As long as ACK congestion control is optional for TCP, there is
little incentive for the TCP end nodes to cheat on non-ECN-based ACK
congestion control. There is nothing now that requires TCP hosts to
use congestion control in response to dropped ACK packets.
What avenues for cheating are opened by the use of ECN-Capable ACK
packets? If the end nodes can use ECN to have ACK packets marked
rather than dropped, and if the end nodes can then avoid the use of
ACK congestion control that goes along with the use of ECN on ACK
packets, then the end nodes could have an incentive to cheat.
Senders could cheat by not instructing the receiver to use a higher
ACK Ratio; the receiver would have a hard time detecting this
cheating. Receivers could cheat by not using the ACK Ratio they were
instructed to use, but senders could easily detect this cheating.
However, receivers could also cheat by not using ACK congestion
control and still sending ACK packets as ECN-capable, so ACK
congestion control is not a necessary component for receivers to
cheat about sending ECN-capable ACK packets. One question would be
whether there is any way for receivers to cheat about sending ECN-
Capable ACK packets and not using appropriate ACK congestion control
without this cheating being easily detected by the sender.
What about the ability of routers or middleboxes to detect TCP
receivers that cheat by inappropriately sending ACK packets as ECN-
capable? The router will only know if the receiver is authorized to
send ACK packets as ECN-Capable if it monitored both the SYN and
SYN/ACK packets (and was able to read the TCP options in the packet
Floyd [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
headers). If ACK congestion control has been negotiated, the router
will only know if ACK congestion control is being used correctly by
the receiver if it can monitor the ACK Ratio options sent from the
sender to the receiver. If ACK congestion control is being used, the
router will not necessarily be able to tell if ACK congestion control
is being used correctly by the sender, because drops of ACK packets
might be occurring after the ACK packets have left the router.
However, if the router sees the ACK Ratio options sent from the
sender, the router will be able to tell if the sender is correctly
accounting for those ACK packets that are dropped or ECN-marked on
the path from the receiver to the router.
11. IANA Considerations
IANA will allocate the option numbers for the two TCP options, the
ACK-Congestion-Control-Permitted Option, and the ACK Ratio Option.
12. Conclusions
13. Acknowledgements
Many thanks for feedback from Mark Allman, Armando Caro, and Michael
Welzl, and for contributed text from Michael Welzl.
Normative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, Key Words For Use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels, RFC 2119.
[RFC2581] Allman, M., V. Paxson, and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.
[RFC3465] Allman, M., TCP Congestion Control with Appropriate
Byte Counting (ABC), RFC 3465, Experimental, February
2003.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
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.
Floyd [Page 21]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
Informative References
[RFC3168] K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd and D. Black. The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP. RFC
3168, September 2001.
[RFC4653] S. Bhandarkar, A. L. N. Reddy, M. Allman and E.
Blanton, Improving the Robustness of TCP to Non-
Congestion Events, RFC 4653, August 2006.
[ASA00] A. Aggarwal, S. Savage, and T. Anderson. Understanding
the Performance of TCP Pacing. In INFOCOM (3), pages
11571165, 2000.
[AB05] M. Allman and E. Blanton. Notes on Burst Mitigation
for Transport Protocols. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev.,
35(2):5360, 2005.
[AOM02] J. Aweya, M. Ouellette, and D. Y. Montuno. A Self-
regulating TCP Acknowledgement (ack) Pacing Scheme.
Int. J. Netw. Manag., 12(3):145163, 2002.
[BPK97] Balakrishnan, H., V. Padmanabhan, and Katz, R., The
Effects of Asymmetry on TCP Performance, Third
ACM/IEEE Mobicom Conference, September 1997.
[BGG+07] D.K. Blandford, S.A. Goldman, S. Gorinsky, Y. Zhou,
and D.R. Dooly. Smartacking: Improving TCP
Performance from the Receiving End. Journal of
Internet Engineering, 1(1), 2007.
[TJW00] I. Tam Ming-Chit, D. Jinsong and W. Wang. Improving
TCP Performance Over Asymmetric Networks. ACM SIGCOMM
Computer Communication Review, 30(3), July 2000.
[YMH03] L. Yu, Y. Minhua, and Z. Huimin. The Improvement of
TCP Performance in Bandwidth Asymmetric Network. IEEE
PIMRC, 1:482-486, September 2003.
Authors' Addresses
Floyd [Page 22]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
Sally Floyd
ICSI Center for Internet Research
1947 Center Street, Suite 600
Berkeley, CA 94704
USA
EMail: floyd <at> icir <dot> org
Andres Arcia
Networking, Security & Multimedia (RSM) Dpt.
GET / ENST Bretagne
Rue de la Chataigneraie, CS 17607
35576 Cesson Sevigne Cedex
France
Email: AE <dot> ARCIA <at> enst-bretagne <dot> fr
Janardhan R. Iyengar
Connecticut College
270 Mohegan Avenue
New London, CT 06320
USA
Email: iyengar <at> conncoll <dot> edu
David Ros
Networking, Security & Multimedia (RSM) Dpt.
GET / ENST Bretagne
Rue de la Chataigneraie, CS 17607
35576 Cesson Sevigne Cedex
France
Email: David <dot> Ros <at> enst-bretagne <dot> fr
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
Floyd [Page 23]
INTERNET-DRAFT TCPM - ACK CONGESTION CONTROL June 2007
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.
Floyd [Page 24]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/