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

Versions: (draft-hurtig-tcpm-rtorestart) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 7765

TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (tcpm)                    P. Hurtig
Internet-Draft                                              A. Brunstrom
Intended status: Experimental                        Karlstad University
Expires: October 10, 2015                                     A. Petlund
                                           Simula Research Laboratory AS
                                                                M. Welzl
                                                      University of Oslo
                                                           April 8, 2015


                        TCP and SCTP RTO Restart
                     draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-06

Abstract

   This document describes a modified algorithm for managing the TCP and
   SCTP retransmission timers that provides faster loss recovery when
   there is a small amount of outstanding data for a connection.  The
   modification, RTO Restart (RTOR), allows the transport to restart its
   retransmission timer more aggressively in situations where fast
   retransmit cannot be used.  This enables faster loss detection and
   recovery for connections that are short-lived or application-limited.

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 October 10, 2015.

Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   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.

1.  Introduction

   TCP uses two mechanisms to detect segment loss.  First, if a segment
   is not acknowledged within a certain amount of time, a retransmission
   timeout (RTO) occurs, and the segment is retransmitted [RFC6298].
   While the RTO is based on measured round-trip times (RTTs) between
   the sender and receiver, it also has a conservative lower bound of 1
   second to ensure that delayed segments are not mistaken as lost.
   Second, when a sender receives dupACKs, the fast retransmit algorithm
   infers segment loss and triggers a retransmission [RFC5681].
   Duplicate acknowledgments are generated by a receiver when out-of-
   order segments arrive.  As both segment loss and segment reordering
   cause out-of-order arrival, fast retransmit waits for three dupACKs
   before considering the segment as lost.  In some situations, however,
   the number of outstanding segments is not enough to trigger three
   dupACKs, and the sender must rely on lengthy RTOs for loss recovery.

   The number of outstanding segments can be small for several reasons:

   (1)  The connection is limited by the congestion control when the
        path has a low total capacity (bandwidth-delay product) or the
        connection's share of the capacity is small.  It is also limited
        by the congestion control in the first few RTTs of a connection
        or after an RTO when the available capacity is probed using
        slow-start.

   (2)  The connection is limited by the receiver's available buffer
        space.

   (3)  The connection is limited by the application if the available
        capacity of the path is not fully utilized (e.g. interactive
        applications), or at the end of a transfer.

   While the reasons listed above are valid for any flow, the third
   reason is most common for applications that transmit short flows, or
   use a bursty transmission pattern.  A typical example of applications
   that produce short flows are web-based applications.  [RJ10] shows
   that 70% of all web objects, found at the top 500 sites, are too
   small for fast retransmit to work.  [FDT13] shows that about 77% of
   all retransmissions sent by a major web service are sent after RTO
   expiry.  Applications with bursty transmission patterns often send



Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   data in response to actions, or as a reaction to real life events.
   Typical examples of such applications are stock trading systems,
   remote computer operations, online games, and web-based applications
   using persistent connections.  What is special about this class of
   applications is that they often are time-dependant, and extra latency
   can reduce the application service level [P09].

   The RTO Restart (RTOR) mechanism described in this document makes the
   RTO slightly more aggressive when the number of outstanding segments
   is too small for fast retransmit to work, in an attempt to enable
   faster loss recovery for all segments while being robust to
   reordering.  While RTOR still conforms to the requirement in
   [RFC6298] that segments must not be retransmitted earlier than RTO
   seconds after their original transmission, it could increase the risk
   of spurious timeout.  Spurious timeouts can degrade the performance
   of flows with multiple bursts of data, as a burst following a
   spurious timeout might not fit within the reduced congestion window
   (cwnd).  There are, however, several techniques to mitigate the
   effects of such unnecessary retransmissions (cf.  [RFC4015]).

   While this document focuses on TCP, the described changes are also
   valid for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960]
   which has similar loss recovery and congestion control algorithms.

2.  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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   This document introduces the following variables:

   The number of previously unsent segments (prevunsnt): The number of
   segments that a sender has queued for transmission, but has not yet
   sent.

   RTO Restart threshold (rrthresh): RTOR is enabled whenever the sum of
   the number of outstanding and previously unsent segments (prevunsnt)
   is below this threshold.

3.  RTO Restart Overview

   The RTO management algorithm described in [RFC6298] recommends that
   the retransmission timer is restarted when an acknowledgment (ACK)
   that acknowledges new data is received and there is still outstanding
   data.  The restart is conducted to guarantee that unacknowledged
   segments will be retransmitted after approximately RTO seconds.
   However, by restarting the timer on each incoming ACK,



Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   retransmissions are not typically triggered RTO seconds after their
   previous transmission but rather RTO seconds after the last ACK
   arrived.  The duration of this extra delay depends on several factors
   but is in most cases approximately one RTT.  Hence, in most
   situations, the time before a retransmission is triggered is equal to
   "RTO + RTT".

   The standardized RTO timer management is illustrated in Figure 1
   where a TCP sender transmits three segments to a receiver.  The
   arrival of the first and second segment triggers a delayed ACK
   (delACK) [RFC1122], which restarts the RTO timer at the sender.  The
   RTO is restarted approximately one RTT after the transmission of the
   third segment.  Thus, if the third segment is lost, as indicated in
   Figure 1, the effective loss detection time is "RTO + RTT" seconds.
   In some situations, the effective loss detection time becomes even
   longer.  Consider a scenario where only two segments are outstanding.
   If the second segment is lost, the time to expire the delACK timer
   will also be included in the effective loss detection time.


            Sender                               Receiver
                          ...
            DATA [SEG 1] ----------------------> (ack delayed)
            DATA [SEG 2] ----------------------> (send ack)
            DATA [SEG 3] ----X         /-------- ACK
            (restart RTO)  <----------/
                          ...
            (RTO expiry)
            DATA [SEG 3] ---------------------->


                       Figure 1: RTO restart example

   During normal TCP bulk transfer the current RTO restart approach is
   not a problem.  Actually, as long as enough segments arrive at a
   receiver to enable fast retransmit, RTO-based loss recovery should be
   avoided.  RTOs should only be used as a last resort, as they
   drastically lower the congestion window compared to fast retransmit.
   The current approach can therefore be beneficial -- it is described
   in [EL04] to act as a "safety margin" that compensates for some of
   the problems that the authors have identified with the standard RTO
   calculation.  Notably, the authors of [EL04] also state that "this
   safety margin does not exist for highly interactive applications
   where often only a single packet is in flight."

   Although fast retransmit is preferrable there are situations where
   timeouts are appropriate, or the only choice.  For example, if the
   network is severely congested and no segments arrive RTO-based



Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   recovery should be used.  In this situation, the time to recover from
   the loss(es) will not be the performance bottleneck.  However, for
   connections that do not utilize enough capacity to enable fast
   retransmit, RTO-based loss detection is the only choice and the time
   required for this can become a performance bottleneck.

4.  RTOR Algorithm

   To enable faster loss recovery for connections that are unable to use
   fast retransmit, RTOR can be used.  By resetting the timer to "RTO -
   T_earliest", where T_earliest is the time elapsed since the earliest
   outstanding segment was transmitted, retransmissions will always
   occur after exactly RTO seconds.  This approach makes the RTO more
   aggressive than the standardized approach in [RFC6298] but still
   conforms to the requirement in [RFC6298] that segments must not be
   retransmitted earlier than RTO seconds after their original
   transmission.

   This document specifies an OPTIONAL sender-only modification to TCP
   and SCTP which updates step 5.3 in Section 5 of [RFC6298] (and a
   similar update in Section 6.3.2 of [RFC4960] for SCTP).  A sender
   that implements this method MUST follow the algorithm below:

      When an ACK is received that acknowledges new data:

      (1)  Set T_earliest = 0.

      (2)  If the sum of the number of outstanding and previously unsent
           segments (prevunsnt) is less than an RTOR threshold
           (rrthresh), set T_earliest to the time elapsed since the
           earliest outstanding segment was sent.

      (3)  Restart the retransmission timer so that it will expire after
           (for the current value of RTO):

           (a)  RTO - T_earliest, if RTO - T_earliest > 0.

           (b)  RTO, otherwise.

   The RECOMMENDED value of rrthresh is four, as it will prevent RTOR
   from being more aggressive and potentially causing RTOs instead of
   fast retransmits.  This update needs TCP implementations to track the
   time elapsed since the transmission of the earliest outstanding
   segment (T_earliest).  As RTOR is only used when the amount of
   outstanding and previously unsent data is less than rrthresh
   segments, TCP implementations also need to track whether the amount
   of outstanding and previously unsent data is more, equal, or less
   than rrthresh segments.  Although some packet-based TCP



Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   implementations (e.g.  Linux TCP) already track both the transmission
   times of all segments and also the number of outstanding segments,
   not all implementations do.  Section 5.3 describes how to implement
   segment tracking for a general TCP implementation.  To use RTOR, the
   calculated expiration time MUST be positive (step 3(a) in the list
   above); this is required to ensure that RTOR does not trigger
   retransmissions prematurely when previously retransmitted segments
   are acknowledged.

5.  Discussion

   In this section, we discuss the applicability and a number of issues
   surrounding RTOR.

5.1.  Applicability

   The currently standardized algorithm has been shown to add at least
   one RTT to the loss recovery process in TCP [LS00] and SCTP
   [HB11][PBP09].  For applications that have strict timing requirements
   (e.g. interactive web) rather than throughput requirements, using
   RTOR could be beneficial because the RTT and also the delACK timer of
   receivers are often large components of the effective loss recovery
   time.  Measurements in [HB11] have shown that the total transfer time
   of a lost segment (including the original transmission time and the
   loss recovery time) can be reduced by 35% using RTOR.  These results
   match those presented in [PGH06][PBP09], where RTOR is shown to
   significantly reduce retransmission latency.

   There are also traffic types that do not benefit from RTOR.  One
   example of such traffic is bulk transmission.  The reason why bulk
   traffic does not benefit from RTOR is that such traffic flows mostly
   have four or more segments outstanding, allowing loss recovery by
   fast retransmit.  However, there is no harm in using RTOR for such
   traffic as the algorithm only is active when the amount of
   outstanding and unsent segments are less than rrthresh (default 4).

   Given that RTOR is a mostly conservative algorithm, it is suitable
   for experimentation as a system-wide default for TCP traffic.

5.2.  Spurious Timeouts

   RTOR can in some situations reduce the loss detection time and
   thereby increase the risk of spurious timeouts.  In theory, the
   retransmission timer has a lower bound of 1 second [RFC6298], which
   limits the risk of having spurious timeouts.  However, in practice
   most implementations use a significantly lower value.  Initial
   measurements, show slight increases in the number of spurious
   timeouts when such lower values are used [RHB15].  However, further



Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   experiments, in different environments and with different types of
   traffic, are encouraged to quantify such increases more reliably.

   Does a slightly increased risk matter?  Generally, spurious timeouts
   have a negative effect on the network as segments are transmitted
   needlessly.  However, recent experiments do not show a significant
   increase in network load for a number of realistic scenarios [RHB15].
   Another problem with spurious retransmissions is related to the
   performance of TCP/SCTP, as the congestion window is reduced to one
   segment when timeouts occur [RFC5681].  This could be a potential
   problem for applications transmitting multiple bursts of data within
   a single flow, e.g. web-based HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.0 applications.
   However, results from recent experiments involving persistent web
   traffic [RHB15] only revealed a net gain of using RTOR.  Other types
   of flows, e.g. long-lived bulk flows, are not affected as the
   algorithm is only applied when the amount of outstanding and unsent
   segments is less than rrthresh.  Furthermore, short-lived and
   application-limited flows are typically not affected as they are too
   short to experience the effect of congestion control or have a
   transmission rate that is quickly attainable.

   While a slight increase in spurious timeouts has been observed using
   RTOR, it is not clear whether the effects of this increase mandate
   any future algorithmic changes or not -- especially since most modern
   operating systems already include mechanisms to detect
   [RFC3522][RFC3708][RFC5682] and resolve [RFC4015] possible problems
   with spurious retransmissions.  Further experimentation is needed to
   determine this and thereby move this specification from experimental
   to proposed standard.  For instance, RTOR has not been evaluated in
   the context of mobile networks.  Mobile networks often incur highly
   variable RTTs (delay spikes), due to e.g. handovers, and would
   therefore be a useful scenario for further experimentation.

5.3.  Tracking Outstanding and Previously Unsent Segments

   The method of tracking outstanding and previously unsent segments
   will probably differ depending on the actual TCP implementation.  For
   packet-based TCP implementations, tracking outstanding segments is
   often straightforward and can be implemented using a simple counter.
   For byte-based TCP stacks it is a more complex task.  Section 3.2 of
   [RFC5827] outlines a general method of tracking the number of
   outstanding segments.  The same method can be used for RTOR.  The
   implementation will have to track segment boundaries to form an
   understanding as to how many actual segments have been transmitted,
   but not acknowledged.  This can be done by the sender tracking the
   boundaries of the rrthresh segments on the right side of the current
   window (which involves tracking rrthresh + 1 sequence numbers in
   TCP).  This could be done by keeping a circular list of the segment



Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   boundaries, for instance.  Cumulative ACKs that do not fall within
   this region indicate that at least rrthresh segments are outstanding,
   and therefore RTOR is not enabled.  When the outstanding window
   becomes small enough that RTOR can be invoked, a full understanding
   of the number of outstanding segments will be available from the
   rrthresh + 1 sequence numbers retained.  (Note: the implicit sequence
   number consumed by the TCP FIN bit can also be included in the
   tracking of segment boundaries.)

   Tracking the number of previously unsent segments depends on the
   segmentation strategy used by the TCP implementation, not whether it
   is packet-based or byte-based.  In the case segments are formed
   directly on socket writes, the process of determining the number of
   previously unsent segments should be trivial.  In the case that
   unsent data can be segmented (or re-segmented) as long as it still is
   unsent, a straightforward strategy could be to divide the amount of
   unsent data (in bytes) with the SMSS to obtain an estimate.  In some
   cases, such an estimation could be too simplistic, depending on the
   segmentation strategy of the TCP implementation.  However, this
   estimation is not critical to RTOR.  For instance, implementations
   can use a simplified method by setting prevunsnt to rrthresh whenever
   previously unsent data is available, and set prevunsnt to zero when
   no new data is available.  This will disable RTOR in the presence of
   unsent data and only use the number of outstanding segments to
   enable/disable RTOR.  This strategy was used in an earlier version of
   the algorithm and works well.  The addition of tracking prevunsnt was
   only made to optimize a corner case in which RTOR was unnecessarily
   disabled.

6.  Related Work

   There are several proposals that address the problem of not having
   enough ACKs for loss recovery.  In what follows, we explain why the
   mechanism described here is complementary to these approaches:

   The limited transmit mechanism [RFC3042] allows a TCP sender to
   transmit a previously unsent segment for each of the first two
   dupACKs.  By transmitting new segments, the sender attempts to
   generate additional dupACKs to enable fast retransmit.  However,
   limited transmit does not help if no previously unsent data is ready
   for transmission.  [RFC5827] specifies an early retransmit algorithm
   to enable fast loss recovery in such situations.  By dynamically
   lowering the number of dupACKs needed for fast retransmit
   (dupthresh), based on the number of outstanding segments, a smaller
   number of dupACKs is needed to trigger a retransmission.  In some
   situations, however, the algorithm is of no use or might not work
   properly.  First, if a single segment is outstanding, and lost, it is
   impossible to use early retransmit.  Second, if ACKs are lost, early



Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   retransmit cannot help.  Third, if the network path reorders
   segments, the algorithm might cause more unnecessary retransmissions
   than fast retransmit.  The recommended value of RTOR's rrthresh
   variable is based on the dupthresh, but is possible to adapt to allow
   tighter integration with other experimental algorithms such as early
   retransmit.

   Tail Loss Probe [TLP] is a proposal to send up to two "probe
   segments" when a timer fires which is set to a value smaller than the
   RTO.  A "probe segment" is a new segment if new data is available,
   else a retransmission.  The intention is to compensate for sluggish
   RTO behavior in situations where the RTO greatly exceeds the RTT,
   which, according to measurements reported in [TLP], is not uncommon.
   Furthermore, TLP also tries to circumvent the congestion window reset
   to one segment by instead enabling fast recovery.  The Probe timeout
   (PTO) is normally two RTTs, and a spurious PTO is less risky than a
   spurious RTO because it would not have the same negative effects
   (clearing the scoreboard and restarting with slow-start).  TLP is a
   more advanced mechanism than RTOR, requiring e.g.  SACK to work, and
   is often able to reduce loss recovery times more.  However, it also
   increases the amount of spurious retransmissions noticeably, as
   compared to RTOR [RHB15].

   TLP is applicable in situations where RTOR does not apply, and it
   could overrule (yielding a similar general behavior, but with a lower
   timeout) RTOR in cases where the number of outstanding segments is
   smaller than four and no new segments are available for transmission.
   The PTO has the same inherent problem of restarting the timer on an
   incoming ACK, and could be combined with a strategy similar to RTOR's
   to offer more consistent timeouts.

7.  SCTP Socket API Considerations

   This section describes how the socket API for SCTP defined in
   [RFC6458] is extended to control the usage of RTO restart for SCTP.

   Please note that this section is informational only.

7.1.  Data Types

   This section uses data types from [IEEE.1003-1G.1997]: uintN_t means
   an unsigned integer of exactly N bits (e.g., uint16_t).  This is the
   same as in [RFC6458].








Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


7.2.  Socket Option for Controlling the RTO Restart Support
      (SCTP_RTO_RESTART)

   This socket option allows the enabling or disabling of RTO Restart
   for SCTP associations.

   Whether RTO Restart is enabled or not per default is implementation
   specific.

   This socket option uses IPPROTO_SCTP as its level and
   SCTP_RTO_RESTART as its name.  It can be used with getsockopt() and
   setsockopt().  The socket option value uses the following structure
   defined in [RFC6458]:

   struct sctp_assoc_value {
     sctp_assoc_t assoc_id;
     uint32_t assoc_value;
   };

   assoc_id:  This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style sockets.
      For one-to-many style sockets, this parameter indicates upon which
      association the user is performing an action.  The special
      sctp_assoc_t SCTP_{FUTURE|CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC can also be used in
      assoc_id for setsockopt().  For getsockopt(), the special value
      SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC can be used in assoc_id, but it is an error to
      use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC in assoc_id.

   assoc_value:  A non-zero value encodes the enabling of RTO restart
      whereas a value of 0 encodes the disabling of RTO restart.

   sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support SCTP_RTO_RESTART.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

9.  Security Considerations

   This document discusses a change in how to set the retransmission
   timer's value when restarted.  Therefore, the security considerations
   found in [RFC6298] apply to this document.  No additional security
   problems have been identified with RTO Restart at this time.

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Michael Tuexen for contributing the SCTP
   Socket API considerations and Godred Fairhurst, Yuchung Cheng, Mark
   Allman, Anantha Ramaiah, Richard Scheffenegger, Nicolas Kuhn,



Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   Alexander Zimmermann, and Michael Scharf for commenting on the draft
   and the ideas behind it.

   All the authors are supported by RITE (http://riteproject.eu/ ), a
   research project (ICT-317700) funded by the European Community under
   its Seventh Framework Program.  The views expressed here are those of
   the author(s) only.  The European Commission is not liable for any
   use that may be made of the information in this document.

11.  Changes from Previous Versions

   RFC-Editor note: please remove this section prior to publication.

11.1.  Changes from draft-ietf-...-05 to -06

   o  Added socket API considerations, after discussing the draft in
      tsvwg.

11.2.  Changes from draft-ietf-...-04 to -05

   o  Introduced variable to track the number of previously unsent
      segments.

   o  Clarified many concepts, e.g. extended the description on how to
      track outstanding and previously unsent segments.

   o  Added a reference to initial measurements on the effects of using
      RTOR.

   o  Improved wording throughout the document.

11.3.  Changes from draft-ietf-...-03 to -04

   o  Changed the algorithm to allow RTOR when there is unsent data
      available, but the cwnd does not allow transmission.

   o  Changed the algorithm to not trigger if RTOR <= 0.

   o  Made minor adjustments throughout the document to adjust for the
      algorithmic change.

   o  Improved the wording throughout the document.

11.4.  Changes from draft-ietf-...-02 to -03

   o  Updated the document to use "RTOR" instead of "RTO Restart" when
      refering to the modified algorithm.




Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   o  Moved document terminology to a section of its own.

   o  Introduced the rrthresh variable in the terminology section.

   o  Added a section to generalize the tracking of outstanding
      segments.

   o  Updated the algorithm to work when the number of outstanding
      segments is less than four and one segment is ready for
      transmission, by restarting the timer when new data has been sent.

   o  Clarified the relationship between fast retransmit and RTOR.

   o  Improved the wording throughout the document.

11.5.  Changes from draft-ietf-...-01 to -02

   o  Changed the algorithm description in Section 3 to use formal RFC
      2119 language.

   o  Changed last paragraph of Section 3 to clarify why the RTO restart
      algorithm is active when less than four segments are outstanding.

   o  Added two paragraphs in Section 4.1 to clarify why the algorithm
      can be turned on for all TCP traffic without having any negative
      effects on traffic patterns that do not benefit from a modified
      timer restart.

   o  Improved the wording throughout the document.

   o  Replaced and updated some references.

11.6.  Changes from draft-ietf-...-00 to -01

   o  Improved the wording throughout the document.

   o  Removed the possibility for a connection limited by the receiver's
      advertised window to use RTO restart, decreasing the risk of
      spurious retransmission timeouts.

   o  Added a section that discusses the applicability of and problems
      related to the RTO restart mechanism.

   o  Updated the text describing the relationship to TLP to reflect
      updates made in this draft.

   o  Added acknowledgments.




Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

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

   [RFC3042]  Allman, M., Balakrishnan, H., and S. Floyd, "Enhancing
              TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit", RFC 3042,
              January 2001.

   [RFC3522]  Ludwig, R. and M. Meyer, "The Eifel Detection Algorithm
              for TCP", RFC 3522, April 2003.

   [RFC3708]  Blanton, E. and M. Allman, "Using TCP Duplicate Selective
              Acknowledgement (DSACKs) and Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol (SCTP) Duplicate Transmission Sequence Numbers
              (TSNs) to Detect Spurious Retransmissions", RFC 3708,
              February 2004.

   [RFC4015]  Ludwig, R. and A. Gurtov, "The Eifel Response Algorithm
              for TCP", RFC 4015, February 2005.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
              4960, September 2007.

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

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

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

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







Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


12.2.  Informative References

   [EL04]     Ekstroem, H. and R. Ludwig, "The Peak-Hopper: A New End-
              to-End Retransmission Timer for Reliable Unicast
              Transport", IEEE INFOCOM 2004, March 2004.

   [FDT13]    Flach, T., Dukkipati, N., Terzis, A., Raghavan, B.,
              Cardwell, N., Cheng, Y., Jain, A., Hao, S., Katz-Bassett,
              E., and R. Govindan, "Reducing Web Latency: the Virtue of
              Gentle Aggression", Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Conf., August 2013.

   [HB11]     Hurtig, P. and A. Brunstrom, "SCTP: designed for timely
              message delivery?", Springer Telecommunication Systems 47
              (3-4), August 2011.

   [IEEE.1003-1G.1997]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
              "Protocol Independent Interfaces", IEEE Standard 1003.1G,
              March 1997.

   [LS00]     Ludwig, R. and K. Sklower, "The Eifel retransmission
              timer", ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 30(3), July
              2000.

   [P09]      Petlund, A., "Improving latency for interactive, thin-
              stream applications over reliable transport", Unipub PhD
              Thesis, Oct 2009.

   [PBP09]    Petlund, A., Beskow, P., Pedersen, J., Paaby, E., Griwodz,
              C., and P. Halvorsen, "Improving SCTP Retransmission
              Delays for Time-Dependent Thin Streams", Springer
              Multimedia Tools and Applications, 45(1-3), 2009.

   [PGH06]    Pedersen, J., Griwodz, C., and P. Halvorsen,
              "Considerations of SCTP Retransmission Delays for Thin
              Streams", IEEE LCN 2006, November 2006.

   [RFC6458]  Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Poon, K., Lei, P., and V.
              Yasevich, "Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control
              Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6458, December 2011.

   [RHB15]    Rajiullah, M., Hurtig, P., Brunstrom, A., Petlund, A., and
              M. Welzl, "An Evaluation of Tail Loss Recovery Mechanisms
              for TCP", ACM SIGCOMM CCR 45 (1), January 2015.







Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


   [RJ10]     Ramachandran, S., "Web metrics: Size and number of
              resources", Google
              http://code.google.com/speed/articles/web-metrics.html,
              May 2010.

   [TLP]      Dukkipati, N., Cardwell, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
              "TCP Loss Probe (TLP): An Algorithm for Fast Recovery of
              Tail Losses", Internet-draft draft-dukkipati-tcpm-tcp-
              loss-probe-01.txt, February 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Per Hurtig
   Karlstad University
   Universitetsgatan 2
   Karlstad  651 88
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 54 700 23 35
   Email: per.hurtig@kau.se


   Anna Brunstrom
   Karlstad University
   Universitetsgatan 2
   Karlstad  651 88
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 54 700 17 95
   Email: anna.brunstrom@kau.se


   Andreas Petlund
   Simula Research Laboratory AS
   P.O. Box 134
   Lysaker  1325
   Norway

   Phone: +47 67 82 82 00
   Email: apetlund@simula.no











Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          TCP and SCTP RTO Restart              April 2015


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

   Phone: +47 22 85 24 20
   Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no











































Hurtig, et al.          Expires October 10, 2015               [Page 16]


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