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

Versions: (draft-khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn) 00 01

Network Working Group                                         N. Khademi
Internet-Draft                                                  M. Welzl
Intended status: Experimental                         University of Oslo
Expires: November 5, 2017                                    G. Armitage
                                      Swinburne University of Technology
                                                            G. Fairhurst
                                                  University of Aberdeen
                                                             May 4, 2017


                 TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)
               draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-01

Abstract

   Recent Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanisms instantiate shallow
   buffers with burst tolerance to minimise the time that packets spend
   enqueued at a bottleneck.  However, shallow buffering can cause
   noticeable performance degradation when TCP is used over a network
   path with a large bandwidth-delay-product.  Traditional methods rely
   on detecting network congestion through reported loss of transport
   packets.  Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) instead allows a
   router to directly signal incipient congestion.  A sending endpoint
   can distinguish when congestion is signalled via ECN, rather than by
   packet loss.  An ECN signal indicates that an AQM mechanism has done
   its job, and therefore the bottleneck network queue is likely to be
   shallow.  This document therefore proposes an update to the TCP
   sender-side ECN reaction in congestion avoidance to reduce the
   FlightSize by a smaller amount than the congestion control
   algorithm's reaction to loss.  Future versions of this document will
   also describe a corresponding method for the Stream Control
   Transmission Protocol (SCTP).

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."




Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                     ABE                          May 2017


   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 5, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Why Use ECN to Vary the Degree of Backoff?  . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Focus on ECN as Defined in RFC3168  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Discussion: Choice of ABE Multiplier  . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Status of the Update  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Revision Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Definitions

   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].

2.  Introduction

   Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] makes it possible
   for an Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism to signal the presence
   of incipient congestion without incurring packet loss.  This lets the



Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                     ABE                          May 2017


   network deliver some packets to an application that would have been
   dropped if the application or transport did not support ECN.  This
   packet loss reduction is the most obvious benefit of ECN, but it is
   often relatively modest.  There are also significant other benefits
   from deploying ECN [RFC8087], including reduced end-to-end network
   latency.

   The rules for ECN were originally written to be very conservative,
   and required the congestion control algorithms of ECN-capable
   transport protocols to treat ECN congestion signals exactly the same
   as they would treat a packet loss [RFC3168].

   Research has demonstrated the benefits of reducing network delays due
   to excessive buffering [BUFFERBLOAT]; this has led to the creation of
   new AQM mechanisms like PIE [RFC8033] and CoDel [CODEL2012]
   [I-D.CoDel], which avoid causing the bloated queues that are common
   with a simple tail-drop behaviour (also known as a First-In First-
   Out, FIFO, queue).

   These AQM mechanisms instantiate short queues that are designed to
   tolerate packet bursts.  However, congestion control mechanisms
   cannot always utilise a bottleneck link well where there are short
   queues.  For example, to allow a single TCP connection to fully
   utilise a network path, the queue at the bottleneck link must be able
   to compensate for TCP halving the "FlightSize" and "ssthresh"
   variables in response to a lost packet [RFC5681].  This requires the
   bottleneck queue to be able to store at least an end-to-end
   bandwidth-delay product (BDP) of data, which effectively doubles both
   the amount of data that can be in flight and the round-trip time
   (RTT) experience using the network path.

   Modern AQM mechanisms can use ECN to signal the early signs of
   impending queue buildup long before a tail-drop queue would be forced
   to resort to dropping packets.  It is therefore appropriate for the
   transport protocol congestion control algorithm to have a more
   measured response when an early-warning signal of congestion is
   received in the form of an ECN CE-marked packet.  Recognizing these
   changes in modern AQM practices, more recent rules have relaxed the
   strict requirement that ECN signals be treated identically to packet
   loss [I-D.ECN-exp].  Following these newer, more flexible rules, this
   document defines a new sender-side-only congestion control response,
   called "ABE" (Alternative Backoff with ECN).  ABE improves the
   performance when routers use shallow buffered AQM mechanisms.








Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                     ABE                          May 2017


3.  Specification

   This specification describes an update to the congestion control
   algorithm of an ECN-capable TCP transport protocol.  It allows a TCP
   stack to update the TCP sender response when it receives feedback
   indicating reception of a CE-marked packet.  It RECOMMENDS that a TCP
   sender multiplies the FlightSize by 0.8 and reduces the slow start
   threshold (ssthresh) in congestion avoidance following reception of a
   TCP segment that sets the ECN-Echo flag (defined in [RFC3168]).

4.  Discussion

   Much of the technical background to this congestion control response
   can be found in a research paper [ABE2017].  This paper used a mix of
   experiments, theory and simulations with standard NewReno and CUBIC
   to evaluate the technique.  It examined the impact of enabling ECN
   and letting individual TCP senders back off by a reduced amount in
   reaction to the receiver that reports ECN CE-marks from AQM-enabled
   bottlenecks.  The technique was shown to present "...significant
   performance gains in lightly-multiplexed scenarios, without losing
   the delay-reduction benefits of deploying CoDel or PIE".  The
   performance improvement is achieved when reacting to ECN-Echo in
   congestion avoidance by multiplying FlightSize and sstthresh with a
   value in the range [0.7..0.85].

4.1.  Why Use ECN to Vary the Degree of Backoff?

   The classic rule-of-thumb dictates that a network path needs to
   provide a BDP of bottleneck buffering if a TCP connection wishes to
   optimise path utilisation.  A single TCP bulk transfer running
   through such a bottleneck will have increased its congestion window
   (cwnd) up to 2*BDP by the time that packet loss occurs.  When packet
   loss is detected (regarded as a notification of congestion), Standard
   TCP halves the FlightSize and ssthresh [RFC5681], which causes the
   TCP congestion control to go back to allowing only a BDP of packets
   in flight -- just sufficient to maintain 100% utilisation of the
   bottleneck on the network path.

   AQM mechanisms such as CoDel [I-D.CoDel] and PIE [RFC8033] set a
   delay target in routers and use congestion notifications to constrain
   the queuing delays experienced by packets, rather than in response to
   impending or actual bottleneck buffer exhaustion.  With current
   default delay targets, CoDel and PIE both effectively emulate a
   shallow buffered bottleneck (section II, [ABE2017]) while also
   allowing short traffic bursts into the queue.  This provides
   acceptable performance for TCP connections over a path with a low
   BDP, or in highly multiplexed scenarios (many concurrent transport
   connections).  However, it interacts badly for a lightly-multiplexed



Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                     ABE                          May 2017


   case (few concurrent connections) over a path with a large BDP.
   Conventional TCP backoff in such cases leads to gaps in packet
   transmission and under-utilisation of the path.

   Instead of discarding packets, an AQM mechanism is allowed to mark
   ECN-capable packets with an ECN CE-mark.  The reception of a CE-mark
   not only indicates congestion on the network path, it also indicates
   that an AQM mechanism exists at the bottleneck along the path, and
   hence the CE-mark likely came from a bottleneck with a shallow queue.
   Reacting differently to an ECN CE-mark than to packet loss can then
   yield the benefit of a reduced back-off, as with CUBIC [I-D.CUBIC],
   when queues are short, yet it can avoid generating excessive delay
   when queues are long.  Using ECN can also be advantageous for several
   other reasons [RFC8087].

   The idea of reacting differently to loss and detection of an ECN CE-
   mark pre-dates this document.  For example, previous research
   proposed using ECN CE-marks to modify TCP congestion control
   behaviour via a larger multiplicative decrease factor in conjunction
   with a smaller additive increase factor [ICC2002].  The goal of this
   former work was to operate across AQM bottlenecks using Random Early
   Detection (RED) that were not necessarily configured to emulate a
   shallow queue ([RFC7567] notes the current status of RED as an AQM
   method.)

4.2.  Focus on ECN as Defined in RFC3168

   Some transport protocol mechanisms rely on ECN semantics that differ
   from the original ECN definition [RFC3168] -- for example, Congestion
   Exposure (ConEx) [RFC7713] and Datacenter TCP (DCTCP)
   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-dctcp] need more accurate ECN information than that
   offered by the original feedback method.  Other mechanisms (e.g.,
   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn]) allow the sender to adjust the rate
   more frequently than once each path RTT.  Use of these mechanisms is
   out of the scope of the current document.

4.3.  Discussion: Choice of ABE Multiplier

   ABE decouples the reaction of a TCP sender to loss and ECN CE-marks
   when in the congestion avoidance phase.  The description respectively
   uses beta_{loss} and beta_{ecn} to refer to the multiplicative
   decrease factors applied in response to packet loss, and in response
   to a receiver indicating that an ECN CE-mark was received on an ECN-
   enabled TCP connection.  For non-ECN-enabled TCP connections, no ECN
   CE-marks are received and only beta_{loss} applies.

   In other words, in response to detected loss:




Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                     ABE                          May 2017


      FlightSize_(n+1) = FlightSize_n * beta_{loss}

   and in response to an indication of a received ECN CE-mark:

      FlightSize_(n+1) = FlightSize_n * beta_{ecn}

   where FlightSize is the amount of outstanding data in the network,
   upper-bounded by the sender's cwnd and the receiver's advertised
   window (rwnd) [RFC5681].  The higher the values of beta_{loss} and
   beta_{ecn}, the less aggressive the response of any individual
   backoff event.

   The appropriate choice for beta_{loss} and beta_{ecn} values is a
   balancing act between path utilisation and draining the bottleneck
   queue.  More aggressive backoff (smaller beta_*) risks underutilising
   the path, while less aggressive backoff (larger beta_*) can result in
   slower draining of the bottleneck queue.

   The Internet has already been running with at least two different
   beta_{loss} values for several years: the standard value is 0.5
   [RFC5681], and the Linux implementation of CUBIC [I-D.CUBIC] has used
   a multiplier of 0.7 since kernel version 2.6.25 released in 2008.
   ABE proposes no change to beta_{loss} used by current TCP
   implementations.

   beta_{ecn} depends on how the response of a TCP connection to shallow
   AQM marking thresholds is optimised. beta_{loss} reflects the
   preferred response of each congestion control algorithm when faced
   with exhaustion of buffers (of unknown depth) signalled by packet
   loss.  Consequently, for any given TCP congestion control algorithm
   the choice of beta_{ecn} is likely to be algorithm-specific, rather
   than a constant multiple of the algorithm's existing beta_{loss}.

   A range of tests (section IV, [ABE2017]) with NewReno and CUBIC over
   CoDel and PIE in lightly-multiplexed scenarios have explored this
   choice of parameter.  The results of these tests indicate that CUBIC
   connections benefit from beta_{ecn} of 0.85 (cf.  beta_{loss} = 0.7),
   and NewReno connections see improvements with beta_{ecn} in the range
   0.7 to 0.85 (cf. beta_{loss} = 0.5).

5.  Status of the Update

   This update is a sender-side only change.  Like other changes to
   congestion-control algorithms, it does not require any change to the
   TCP receiver or to network devices.  It does not require any ABE-
   specific changes in routers or the use of Accurate ECN feedback
   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn] by a receiver.




Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                     ABE                          May 2017


   The currently published ECN specification requires that the
   congestion control response to a CE-marked packet is the same as the
   response to a dropped packet [RFC3168].  The specification is
   currently being updated to allow for specifications that do not
   follow this rule [I-D.ECN-exp].  The present specification defines
   such an experiment and has thus been assigned an Experimental status
   before being proposed as a Standards-Track update.

   The purpose of the Internet experiment is to collect experience with
   deployment of ABE, and confirm the safety in deployed networks using
   this update to TCP congestion control.

   When used with bottlenecks that do not support ECN-marking the
   specification does not modify the transport protocol.

   To evaluate the benefit, this experiment therefore requires support
   in AQM routers (except to enable an ECN-marking mechanism [RFC3168]
   [RFC7567]) for ECN-marking of packets carrying the ECN Capable
   Transport, ECT(0), codepoint [RFC3168].

   If the method is only deployed by some senders, and not by others,
   the senders that use this method can gain some advantage, possibly at
   the expense of other flows that do not use this updated method.
   Because this advantage applies only to ECN-marked packets and not to
   loss indications, the new method cannot lead to congestion collapse.

   The result of this Internet experiment will be reported by
   presentation to the TCPM WG (or IESG) or an implementation report at
   the end of the experiment.

6.  Acknowledgements

   Authors N.  Khademi, M.  Welzl and G.  Fairhurst were part-funded by
   the European Community under its Seventh Framework Programme through
   the Reducing Internet Transport Latency (RITE) project (ICT-317700).
   The views expressed are solely those of the authors.

   The authors would like to thank Stuart Cheshire for many suggestions
   when revising the draft, and the following people for their
   contributions to [ABE2017]: Chamil Kulatunga, David Ros, Stein
   Gjessing, Sebastian Zander.  Thanks also to (in alphabetical order)
   Bob Briscoe, Markku Kojo, John Leslie, Dave Taht and the TCPM working
   group for providing valuable feedback on this document.

   The authors would finally like to thank everyone who provided
   feedback on the congestion control behaviour specified in this update
   received from the IRTF Internet Congestion Control Research Group
   (ICCRG).



Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                     ABE                          May 2017


7.  IANA Considerations

   XX RFC ED - PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION XXX

   This document includes no request to IANA.

8.  Implementation Status

   ABE is implemented as a patch for Linux and FreeBSD.  It is meant for
   research and available for download from
   http://heim.ifi.uio.no/naeemk/research/ABE/ This code was used to
   produce the test results that are reported in [ABE2017].

9.  Security Considerations

   The described method is a sender-side only transport change, and does
   not change the protocol messages exchanged.  The security
   considerations for ECN [RFC3168] therefore still apply.

   This is a change to TCP congestion control with ECN that will
   typically lead to a change in the capacity achieved when flows share
   a network bottleneck.  This could result in some flows receiving more
   than their fair share of capacity.  Similar unfairness in the way
   that capacity is shared is also exhibited by other congestion control
   mechanisms that have been in use in the Internet for many years
   (e.g., CUBIC [I-D.CUBIC]).  Unfairness may also be a result of other
   factors, including the round trip time experienced by a flow.  ABE
   applies only when ECN-marked packets are received, not when packets
   are lost, hence use of ABE cannot lead to congestion collapse.

10.  Revision Information

   XX RFC ED - PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION XXX

   -01.  Text improved, mainly incorporating comments from Stuart
   Cheshire.  The reference to a technical report has been updated to a
   published version of the tests [ABE2017].  Used "AQM Mechanism"
   throughout in place of other alternatives, and more consistent use of
   technical language and clarification on the intended purpose of the
   experiments required by EXP status.  There was no change to the
   technical content.

   -00. draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-00 replaces draft-
   khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-01.  Text describing the nature
   of the experiment was added.

   Individual draft -01.  This I-D now refers to draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-
   experimentation-02, which replaces draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-



Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                     ABE                          May 2017


   response-00 to make a broader update to RFC3168 for the sake of
   allowing experiments.  As a result, some of the motivating and
   discussing text that was moved from draft-khademi-alternativebackoff-
   ecn-03 to draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00 has now been re-
   inserted here.

   Individual draft -00. draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00 and draft-
   khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-00 replace draft-khademi-
   alternativebackoff-ecn-03, following discussion in the TSVWG and TCPM
   working groups.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ECN-exp]
              Black, D., "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
              Experimentation", Internet-draft, IETF work-in-progress
              draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-02, April 2017.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC5681]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.

   [RFC7567]  Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
              Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
              BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC7567, July 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7567>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [ABE2017]  Khademi, N., Armitage, G., Welzl, M., Fairhurst, G.,
              Zander, S., and D. Ros, "Alternative Backoff: Achieving
              Low Latency and High Throughput with ECN and AQM", IFIP
              NETWORKING 2017, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2017.






Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                     ABE                          May 2017


   [BUFFERBLOAT]
              "Bufferbloat project",
              <https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/
              Introduction/>.

   [CODEL2012]
              Nichols, K. and V. Jacobson, "Controlling Queue Delay",
              July 2012, <http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2209336>.

   [I-D.CoDel]
              Nichols, K., Jacobson, V., McGregor, V., and J. Iyengar,
              "Controlled Delay Active Queue Management", Internet-
              draft, IETF work-in-progress draft-ietf-aqm-codel-07,
              March 2017.

   [I-D.CUBIC]
              Rhee, I., Xu, L., Ha, S., Zimmermann, A., Eggert, L., and
              R. Scheffenegger, "CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance Networks",
              Internet-draft, IETF work-in-progress draft-ietf-tcpm-
              cubic-04, February 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn]
              Briscoe, B., Kuehlewind, M., and R. Scheffenegger, "More
              Accurate ECN Feedback in TCP", draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-
              ecn-01 (work in progress), June 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-dctcp]
              Bensley, S., Eggert, L., Thaler, D., Balasubramanian, P.,
              and G. Judd, "Datacenter TCP (DCTCP): TCP Congestion
              Control for Datacenters", draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-02 (work
              in progress), July 2016.

   [ICC2002]  Kwon, M. and S. Fahmy, "TCP Increase/Decrease Behavior
              with Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", IEEE
              ICC 2002, New York, New York, USA, May 2002,
              <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2002.997262>.

   [RFC7713]  Mathis, M. and B. Briscoe, "Congestion Exposure (ConEx)
              Concepts, Abstract Mechanism, and Requirements", RFC 7713,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7713, December 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7713>.

   [RFC8033]  Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and G. White,
              "Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A
              Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat
              Problem", RFC 8033, DOI 10.17487/RFC8033, February 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8033>.




Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                     ABE                          May 2017


   [RFC8087]  Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using
              Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8087, March 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8087>.

Authors' Addresses

   Naeem Khademi
   University of Oslo
   PO Box 1080 Blindern
   Oslo  N-0316
   Norway

   Email: naeemk@ifi.uio.no


   Michael Welzl
   University of Oslo
   PO Box 1080 Blindern
   Oslo  N-0316
   Norway

   Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no


   Grenville Armitage
   Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures
   Swinburne University of Technology
   PO Box 218
   John Street, Hawthorn
   Victoria  3122
   Australia

   Email: garmitage@swin.edu.au


   Godred Fairhurst
   University of Aberdeen
   School of Engineering, Fraser Noble Building
   Aberdeen  AB24 3UE
   UK

   Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk








Khademi, et al.         Expires November 5, 2017               [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/