[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-accecn-reqs) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 7560

TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (tcpm)           M. Kuehlewind, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                   University of Stuttgart
Intended status: Informational                          R. Scheffenegger
Expires: January 16, 2014                                   NetApp, Inc.
                                                           July 15, 2013


  Problem Statement and Requirements for a More Accurate ECN Feedback
                     draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-03

Abstract

   Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is an IP/TCP mechanism where
   network nodes can mark IP packets instead of dropping them to
   indicate congestion to the end-points.  An ECN-capable receiver will
   feedback this information to the sender.  ECN is specified for TCP in
   such a way that only one feedback signal can be transmitted per
   Round-Trip Time (RTT).  Recently, new TCP mechanisms like ConEx or
   DCTCP need more accurate ECN feedback information in the case where
   more than one marking is received in one RTT.  This documents
   specifies requirement for different ECN feedback scheme in the TCP
   header to provide more than one feedback signal per RTT.

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 January 16, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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



Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires January 16, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Requirements for More Accurate ECN          July 2013


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Overview ECN and ECN Nonce in IP/TCP  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Design Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Re-use of ECN/NS Header Bits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Use of Other Header Bits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  TCP Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] is an IP/TCP
   mechanism where network nodes can mark IP packets instead of dropping
   them to indicate congestion to the end-points.  An ECN-capable
   receiver will feedback this information to the sender.  ECN is
   specified for TCP in such a way that only one feedback signal can be
   transmitted per Round-Trip Time (RTT).  This is sufficient for
   current congestion control mechanisms, as only one reduction in
   sending rate is performed per RTT independent of the number of ECN
   congestion marks.  But recently proposed mechanisms like Congestion
   Exposure (ConEx) or DCTCP [Ali10] need more accurate ECN feedback
   information in the case where more than one marking is received in
   one RTT to work correctly.

   The following scenarios should briefly show where the accurate
   feedback is needed or provides additional value:

   A Standard (RFC5681) TCP sender that supports ConEx:
           In this case the congestion control algorithm still ignores
           multiple marks per RTT, while the ConEx mechanism uses the
           extra information per RTT to re-echo more precise congestion
           information.



Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires January 16, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Requirements for More Accurate ECN          July 2013


   A sender using DCTCP congestion control without ConEx:
           The congestion control algorithm uses the extra info per RTT
           to perform its decrease depending on the number of congestion
           marks.

   A sender using DCTCP congestion control and supports ConEx:
           Both the congestion control algorithm and ConEx use the
           accurate ECN feedback mechanism.

   A standard TCP sender (using RFC5681 congestion control algorithm)
   without ConEx:
           No accurate feedback is necessary here.  The congestion
           control algorithm still react only on one signal per RTT.
           But it is best to have one generic feedback mechanism,
           whether it is used or not.

   This document summarizes the requirements for a new more accurate ECN
   feedback scheme.  While a new feedback scheme should still deliver
   identical performance as classic ECN, this document also clarifies
   what has to be taken into consideration in addition.  Thus the listed
   requirements should be addressed in the specification of a more
   accurate ECN feedback scheme.  Moreover, as a large set of proposals
   already exists, a few high level design choices are sketched and
   briefly discussed, to demonstrate some of the benefits and drawbacks
   of each of these potential schemes.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   We use the following terminology from [RFC3168] and [RFC3540]:

   The ECN field in the IP header:



      CE:      the Congestion Experienced codepoint,

      ECT(0):  the first ECN-capable Transport codepoint, and

      ECT(1):  the second ECN-capable Transport codepoint.

   The ECN flags in the TCP header:






Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires January 16, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Requirements for More Accurate ECN          July 2013


      CWR:     the Congestion Window Reduced flag,

      ECE:     the ECN-Echo flag, and

      NS:      ECN Nonce Sum.

   In this document, the ECN feedback scheme as specified in [RFC3168]
   is called the 'classic ECN' and any new proposal the 'more accurate
   ECN feedback' scheme.  A 'congestion mark' is defined as an IP packet
   where the CE codepoint is set.  A 'congestion event' refers to one or
   more congestion marks belong to the same overload situation in the
   network (usually during one RTT).  A TCP segment with the
   acknowledgment flag set is simply called ACK.

2.  Overview ECN and ECN Nonce in IP/TCP

   ECN requires two bits in the IP header.  The ECN capability of a
   packet is indicated when either one of the two bits is set.  An ECN
   sender can set one or the other bit to indicate an ECN-capable
   transport (ECT) which results in two signals, ECT(0) and ECT(1).  A
   network node can set both bits simultaneously when it experiences
   congestion.  When both bits are set the packet is regarded as
   "Congestion Experienced" (CE).

   In the TCP header the first two bits in byte 14 are defined for the
   use of ECN.  The TCP mechanism for signaling the reception of a
   congestion mark uses the ECN-Echo (ECE) flag in the TCP header.  To
   enable the TCP receiver to determine when to stop setting the ECN-
   Echo flag, the CWR flag is set by the sender upon reception of the
   feedback signal.  This leads always to a full RTT of ACKs with ECE
   set.  Thus any additional CE markings arriving within this RTT can
   not signaled back anymore.

   ECN-Nonce [RFC3540] is an optional addition to ECN that is used to
   protect the TCP sender against accidental or malicious concealment of
   marked or dropped packets.  This addition defines the last bit of
   byte 13 in the TCP header as the Nonce Sum (NS) bit.  With ECN-Nonce
   a nonce sum is maintain that counts the occurrence of ECT(1) packets.

       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 1: The (post-ECN Nonce) definition of the TCP header flags




Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires January 16, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Requirements for More Accurate ECN          July 2013


3.  Requirements

   The requirements of the accurate ECN feedback protocol, for the use
   of e.g. Conex or DCTCP, are to have a fairly accurate (not
   necessarily perfect), timely and protected signaling.  This leads to
   the following requirements, which should be discussed for any
   proposed more accurate ECN feedback scheme:

   Resilience
           The ECN feedback signal is carried within the ACK.  TCP ACKs
           can get lost.  Moreover, delayed ACKs are mostly used with
           TCP.  That means in most cases only every second data packet
           triggers an ACK.  In a high congestion situation where most
           of the packets are marked with CE, an accurate feedback
           mechanism must still be able to signal sufficient congestion
           information.  Thus the accurate ECN feedback extension has to
           take delayed ACK and ACK loss into account.

   Timeliness
           The CE mark is induced by a network node on the transmission
           path and echoed by the receiver in the TCP ACK.  Thus when
           this information arrives at the sender, its naturally already
           about one RTT old.  With a sufficient ACK rate a further
           delay of a small number of ACK can be tolerated but with
           large delays this information will be out dated due to high
           dynamic in the network.  TCP congestion control which
           introduces parts of these dynamics operates on a time scale
           of one RTT.  Thus the congestion feedback information should
           be delivered timely (within one RTT).

   Integrity
           With ECN Nonce, a misbehaving receiver or network node can be
           detected with good probability.  If the accurate ECN feedback
           is reusing the NS bit, it is encouraged to ensure integrity
           at least as good as ECN Nonce.  If this is not possible,
           alternative approaches should be provided how a mechanism
           using the accurate ECN feedback extension can re-ensure
           integrity or give strong incentives for the receiver and
           network node to cooperate honestly.

   Accuracy
           Classic ECN feeds back one congestion notification per RTT,
           as this is supposed to be used for TCP congestion control
           which reduces the sending rate at most once per RTT.  The
           accurate ECN feedback scheme has to ensure that if a
           congestion events occurs at least one congestion notification
           is echoed and received per RTT as classic ECN would do.  Of
           course, the goal of this extension is to reconstruct the



Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires January 16, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     Requirements for More Accurate ECN          July 2013


           number of CE markings (more) accurately and in the best case
           even to reconstruct the (exact) number of payload bytes that
           a CE marked packet was carrying.  However, a sender should
           not assume to get the exact number of congestion markings or
           marked bytes in all situations.

   Complexity
           Of course, the more accurate ECN feedback can also be used,
           even if only one ECN feedback signal per RTT is need.  The
           implementation should be as simple as possible and only a
           minimum of additional state information should be needed.

   Overhead
           A more accurate ecn feedback signal should limit the
           additional network load.  As feedback information has to be
           provided timely and frequently, potentially all or a large
           fraction of TCP acknowledgments will carry this information.
           Ideally, no additional segments are exchanged compared to a
           standard RFC3168 TCP session, while the overhead in each
           segment is kept minimal.  Further, a feedback mechanism
           should be prepared to proved a method to fall-back to well
           known RFC3168 signaling, if the new signal is suppressed by
           middleboxes.

4.  Design Approaches

   All discussed approaches aim to provide accurate ECN feedback
   information as long as no ACK loss occurs and the congestion rate is
   reasonable.  Otherwise the proposed schemes have different resilience
   characteristics depending on the number of used bits for the
   encoding.  While classic ECN provides a reliable (inaccurate)
   feedback of a maximum of one congestion signal per RTT, the proposed
   schemes do not implement any acknowledgement mechanism.

4.1.  Re-use of ECN/NS Header Bits

   The three ECN/NS header, ECE, CWR and NS are re-used (not only for
   additional capability negotiation during the TCP handshake exchange
   but) to signal the current value of an CE counter at the receiver.
   This approach only provides a limited resilience against ACK lost
   depending of the number of used bits.










Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires January 16, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     Requirements for More Accurate ECN          July 2013


   There are several codings proposed so far: An one bit scheme sends
   one ECE for each CE received (while the CWR could be used to
   introduce redundant information in next ACK to increase the
   robustness against ACK loss).  An 3 bit counter scheme uses all three
   bits for continuously feeding the three most significant bits of a CE
   counter back.  An 3 bit codepoint scheme encodes either a CE counter
   or an ECT(1) counter in 8 codepoints.

   The proposed schemes provides accumulated information on ECN-CE-
   marking feedback, similar to the number of acknowledged bytes in the
   TCP header.  Due to the limited number of bits the ECN feedback
   information will wrap-around more often (than the acknowledgement).
   Thus with a smaller number of ACK losses it is already possible to
   loose feedback information.  The resilience could be increased by
   introducing redundancy, e.g. send each counter increase twice or more
   times.  Of course any of these additional mechanisms will increasee
   the complexity.  If the congestion rate is larger that the ACK rate
   (multiplied with the number of feedback information that can be
   signaled per ACK), the congestion information cannot correctly be
   feed back.  Thus an accurate ECN feedback mechanism needs to be able
   to also cover the worst case situation where every packet is CE
   marked.  This can potentially be realized by dynamically adapt the
   ACK rate and redundancy which again increases complexity and also
   potentially the signaling overhead.  For all schemes, an integrity
   check is only provided if ECN Nonce can be supported.

4.2.  Use of Other Header Bits

   As seen in Figure 1, there are currently three unused flag bits in
   the TCP header.  The proposed 3 bit or codepoint schemes could be
   extended by one or more bits, to add higher resilience against ACK
   loss.  The relative gain would be proportionally higher resilience
   against ACK loss, while the respective drawbacks would remain
   identical.

   Moreover, the Urgent Pointer could be used if the Urgent Flag is not
   set.  As this is often the case, the resiliency could by increased
   without additional signaling overhead.

4.3.  TCP Option

   Alternatively, a new TCP option could be introduced, to help
   maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the ECN feedback between
   receiver and sender.  Such an option could provide higher resilience
   and even more information.  E.g. ECN for RTP/UDP provides explicit
   the number of ECT(0), ECT(1), CE, non-ECT marked and lost packets.
   However, deploying new TCP options has its own challenges.  Moreover,
   to actually achieve a high resilience, this option would need to be



Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires January 16, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     Requirements for More Accurate ECN          July 2013


   carried by either all or a large number ACKs.  Thus this approach
   would introduce considerable signaling overhead while ECN feedback is
   not such a critical information (as in the worst case, loss will
   still be available to provide a strong congestion feedback signal).
   Anyway, such a TCP option could also be used in addition to a more
   accurate ECN feedback scheme in the TCP header or in addition to
   classic ECN, only when available and needed.

5.  Acknowledgements

6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

7.  Security Considerations

   If this scheme is used as input for congestion control, the
   respective algorithm might not react appropriately if ECN feedback
   information got lost.  As those schemes should still react
   appropriately to loss, this drawback can not lead to a congestion
   collapse though.

   Providing wrong feedback information could otherwise lead to
   throttling of certain connections.  This problem is identical in the
   classic ECN feedback scheme and should be addressed by an additional
   integrity check like ECN Nonce.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

8.2.  Informative References

   [Ali10]    Alizadeh, M., Greenberg, A., Maltz, D., Padhye, J., Patel,
              P., Prabhakar, B., Sengupta, S., and M. Sridharan, "DCTCP:
              Efficient Packet Transport for the Commoditized Data
              Center", Jan 2010.



Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires January 16, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     Requirements for More Accurate ECN          July 2013


   [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp]
              Briscoe, B., Jacquet, A., Moncaster, T., and A. Smith,
              "Re-ECN: Adding Accountability for Causing Congestion to
              TCP/IP", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp-09 (work in
              progress), October 2010.

   [I-D.kuehlewind-tcpm-accurate-ecn-option]
              Kuehlewind, M. and R. Scheffenegger, "Accurate ECN
              Feedback Option in TCP", draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-accurate-
              ecn-option-01 (work in progress), July 2012.

   [RFC5562]  Kuzmanovic, A., Mondal, A., Floyd, S., and K.
              Ramakrishnan, "Adding Explicit Congestion Notification
              (ECN) Capability to TCP's SYN/ACK Packets", RFC 5562, June
              2009.

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

   [RFC5690]  Floyd, S., Arcia, A., Ros, D., and J. Iyengar, "Adding
              Acknowledgement Congestion Control to TCP", RFC 5690,
              February 2010.

Authors' Addresses

   Mirja Kuehlewind (editor)
   University of Stuttgart
   Pfaffenwaldring 47
   Stuttgart  70569
   Germany

   Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de


   Richard Scheffenegger
   NetApp, Inc.
   Am Euro Platz 2
   Vienna  1120
   Austria

   Phone: +43 1 3676811 3146
   Email: rs@netapp.com









Kuehlewind & ScheffeneggExpires January 16, 2014                [Page 9]


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