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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 6077

   Network Working Group                                  Michael Welzl
   Internet Draft                                 Dimitri Papadimitriou
   Document: draft-irtf-iccrg-wetzl-                            Editors
                                                         Michael Scharf
                                                            Bob Briscoe

   Expires: October 2008                                     April 2008

            Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control


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-

   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

      The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).


   This document describes some of the open problems in Internet
   congestion control that are known today. This includes several new

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008                [Page 1]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   challenges that are becoming important as the network grows, as well
   as some issues that have been known for many years. These challenges
   are generally considered to be open research topics that may require
   more study or application of innovative techniques before Internet-
   scale solutions can be confidently engineered and deployed.

Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [i].

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Global Challenges - Overview...................................4
      2.1 Heterogeneity..............................................4
   3. Detailed Challenges............................................8
      3.1 Challenge 1: Router Support................................8
      3.2 Challenge 2: Corruption Loss..............................11
      3.3 Challenge 3: Small Packets................................13
      3.4 Challenge 4: Pseudo-Wires.................................17
      3.5 Challenge 5: Multi-domain Congestion Control..............18
      3.6 Challenge 6: Precedence for Elastic Traffic...............19
      3.7 Challenge 7: Misbehaving Senders and Receivers............20
      3.8 Other challenges..........................................21
   4. Security Considerations.......................................24
   5. Contributors..................................................24
   6. References....................................................24
   7.1 Normative References.........................................24

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008                [Page 2]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

1. Introduction

   This document describes some of the open research topics in the
   domain of Internet congestion control that are known today. We begin
   by reviewing some proposed definitions of congestion and congestion
   control based on current understandings.

   Congestion can be defined as the reduction in utility due to overload
   in networks that support both spatial and temporal multiplexing, but
   no reservation [Keshav]. Congestion control is a (typically
   distributed) algorithm to share network resources among competing
   traffic sources. Two components of distributed congestion control
   have been defined: the primal and the dual [Kelly98]. Primal
   congestion control refers to the algorithm executed by the traffic
   sources algorithm for controlling their sending rates or window
   sizes. This normally a closed-loop control, where this operation
   depends on feedback. TCP algorithms fall in the "primal" category.
   Dual congestion control is implemented by the routers through
   gathering information about the traffic traversing them. A dual
   congestion control algorithm updates, implicitly or explicitly, a
   congestion measure and sends it back, implicitly or explicitly, to
   the traffic sources that use that link. Queue management algorithms
   such as Random Early Detection (RED) [Floyd93] or Random Exponential
   Marking (REM) [Ath01] fall in the "dual" category.

   Congestion control provides for a fundamental set of mechanisms for
   maintaining the stability and efficiency of the Internet. Congestion
   control has been associated with TCP since Van Jacobson's work in
   1988, but there is also congestion control outside of TCP (e.g. for
   real-time multimedia applications, multicast, and router-based
   mechanisms). The Van Jacobson end-to-end congestion control
   algorithms [Jacobson88] [RFC2581] are used by the Internet transport
   protocol TCP [RFC4614]. They have been proven to be highly successful
   over many years but have begun to reach their limits, as the
   heterogeneity of both the data link and physical layer and
   applications are pulling TCP congestion control (which performs
   poorly as the bandwidth or delay increases) outside of its natural
   operating regime. A side effect of these deficits is that there is an
   increasing share of hosts that use non-standardized congestion
   control enhancements (for instance, many Linux distributions have
   been shipped with "CUBIC" as default TCP congestion control

   While the original Jacobson algorithm requires no congestion-related
   state in routers, more recent modifications have departed from the
   strict application of the end-to-end / transparency principle. Active
   Queue Management (AQM) in routers, e.g., RED and all its variants,
   xCHOKE [Pan00], RED with In/Out (RIO) [Clark98], improves performance
   by keeping queues small (implicit feedback via dropped packets),

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008                [Page 3]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   while Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [Floyd94] [RFC3168]
   passes one bit of congestion information back to senders when an AQM
   would normally drop a packet. These measures do improve performance,
   but there is a limit to how much can be accomplished without more
   information from routers. The requirement of extreme scalability
   together with robustness has been a difficult hurdle to accelerating
   information flow. Primal-Dual TCP/AQM distributed algorithm stability
   and equilibrium properties have been extensively studied (cf. [Low02]

   Congestion control includes many new challenges that are becoming
   important as the network grows in addition to the issues that have
   been known for many years. These are generally considered to be open
   research topics that may require more study or application of
   innovative techniques before Internet-scale solutions can be
   confidently engineered and deployed. In what follows, an overview of
   some of these challenges is given.

2. Global Challenges

   This section describes the global challenges to be addressed in the
   domain of Internet congestion control.

2.1 Heterogeneity

   The Internet encompasses a large variety of heterogeneous IP networks
   that are realized by a multitude of technologies, which result in a
   tremendous variety of link and path characteristics: capacity can be
   either scarce in very slow speed radio links (several kbps), or there
   may be an abundant supply in high-speed optical links (several
   gigabit per second). Concerning latency, scenarios range from local
   interconnects (much less than a millisecond) to certain wireless and
   satellite links with very large latencies (up to a second). Even
   higher latencies can occur in interstellar communication.  As a
   consequence, both the available bandwidth and the end-to-end delay in
   the Internet may vary over many orders of magnitude, and it is likely
   that the range of parameters will further increase in future.

   Additionally, neither the available bandwidth nor the end-to-end
   delay is constant. At the IP layer, competing cross-traffic, traffic
   management in routers, and dynamic routing can result in sudden
   changes of the characteristics of an end-to-end path. Additional
   dynamics can be caused by link layer mechanisms, such as shared media
   access (e.g., in wireless networks), changes of links
   (horizontal/vertical handovers), topology modifications (e. g., in
   ad-hoc networks), link layer error correction and dynamic bandwidth
   provisioning schemes. From this follows that path characteristics can
   be subject to substantial changes within short time frames.

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008                [Page 4]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   The congestion control algorithms have to deal with this variety in
   an efficient way. The congestion control principles introduced by Van
   Jacobson assume a rather static scenario and implicitly target
   configurations where the bandwidth-delay product is of the order of
   some dozens of packets at most. While these principles have proved to
   work well in the Internet for almost two decades, much larger
   bandwidth-delay products and increased dynamics challenge them more
   and more. There are many situations where today's congestion control
   algorithms react in a suboptimal way, resulting in low resource
   utilization, non-optimal congestion avoidance, or unfairness.

   This gave rise to a multitude of new proposals for congestion control
   algorithms. For instance, since the Additive-Increase Multiplicative
   Decrease (AIMD) behavior of TCP is too conservative in practical
   environments when then congestion window is large, several high-speed
   congestion control extensions have been developed. However, these new
   algorithms raise fairness issues, and they may be less robust in
   certain situations for which they have not been designed. Up to now,
   there is still no common agreement in the IETF on which algorithm and
   protocol to choose.

   It is always possible to tune congestion control parameters based on
   some knowledge about the environment and the application scenario.
   However, the fundamental question is whether it is possible to define
   one congestion control mechanism that operates reasonable well in the
   whole range of scenarios that exist in the Internet. Hence, it is an
   important research question how such a "unified" congestion control
   would have to be designed, and which maximum degree of dynamics it
   could efficiently handle.

2.2 Stability

   Control theory, which is a mathematical tool for describing dynamic
   systems, lends itself to modeling congestion control - TCP is a
   perfect example of a typical "closed loop" system that can be
   described in control theoretic terms. In control theory, there is a
   mathematically defined notion of system stability. In a stable
   system, for any bounded input over any amount of time, the output
   will also be bounded. For congestion control, what is actually meant
   with stability is typically asymptotic stability: a mechanism should
   converge to a certain state irrespective of the initial state of the

   Control theoretic modeling of a realistic network can be quite
   difficult, especially when taking distinct packet sizes and
   heterogeneous RTTs into account. It has therefore become common
   practice to model simpler cases and leave the more complicated
   (realistic) situations for simulations. Clearly, if a mechanism is
   not stable in a simple scenario, it is generally useless; this method

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008                [Page 5]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   therefore helps to eliminate faulty congestion control candidates at
   an early stage.

   Some fundamental facts, which are known from control theory are
   useful as guidelines when designing a congestion control mechanism.
   For instance, a controller should only be fed a system state that
   reflects its output. A (low-pass) filter function should be
   used in order to pass only states to the controller that are
   expected to last long enough for its action to be meaningful
   [Jain88]. Action should be carried out whenever such feedback
   arrives, as it is a fundamental principle of control that the control
   frequency should be equal to the feedback frequency. Reacting faster
   leads to oscillations and instability while reacting slower makes the
   system tardy [Jain90].

   TCP stability can be attributed to two key aspects which were
   introduced in [Jacobson88]: the AIMD control law during congestion
   avoidance, which is based on a simple, vector based analysis of two
   controllers sharing one resource with synchronous RTTs [Chiu89], and
   the "conservation of packets principle", which, once the control has
   reached "steady state", tries to maintain an equal amount of packets
   in flight at any time by only sending a packet into the network when
   a packet has left the network (as indicated by an ACK arriving at the
   sender). The latter aspect has guided many decisions regarding
   changes that were made to TCP over the years.

   The reasoning in [Jacobson88] assumes all senders to be acting at the
   same time. The stability of TCP under more realistic network
   conditions has been investigated in a large number of ensuing works,
   leading to no clear conclusion that TCP would also be asymptotically
   stable under arbitrary network conditions.

2.3 Fairness

   Recently, the way the Internet community reasons about fairness has
   been called into deep questioning [Bri07]. Much of the community has
   taken fairness to mean approximate equality between the rates of
   flows (flow rate fairness) that experience equivalent path congestion
   as with TCP [RFC2581] and TFRC [RFC3448]. [RFC3714] depicts the
   resulting situation as "The Amorphous Problem of Fairness".

   A parallel tradition has been built on [Kelly98] where, as long as
   each user is accountable for the cost their rate causes to others
   [MKMV95], the set of rates that everyone chooses is deemed fair (cost
   fairness)---because with any other set of choices people would lose
   more value than they gained overall.

   In comparison, the debate between max-min, proportional and TCP
   fairness is about mere details. These three all share the assumption

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008                [Page 6]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   that equal flow rates are desirable; they merely differ in the second
   order issue of how to share out excess capacity in a network of many
   bottlenecks. In contrast, cost fairness should lead to extremely
   unequal flow rates by design. Equivalently, equal flow rates would
   typically be considered extremely unfair.

   The two traditional approaches are not protocol options that can each
   be followed in different parts of a network. They result in research
   agendas and issues that are different in their respective objectives
   resulting in different set of open issues.

   If we assume TCP-friendliness as a goal with flow rate as the metric,
   open issues would be:

   - Should rate fairness depend on the packet rate or the bit rate?
   - Should flow rate depend on RTT (as in TCP) or whether only flow
   dynamics should depend on RTT (e.g. as in Fast TCP [Jin04])?

   - How to estimate whether a particular flow start strategy is fair?
     Whether a particular fast recovery strategy after a reduction in
     rate due to congestion is fair?
   - If an application needs still smoother flows than TFRC, or it needs
     to burst occasionally, or any other application behavior, how
     should to judge what is reasonably fair?
   - During brief congestion bursts (e.g. due to new flow arrivals) how
     to judge at what point it becomes unfair for some flows to continue
     at a smooth rate while others reduce their rate?

   - Which mechanism(s) to enforce approximate flow rate fairness?
   - How can we introduce some degree of fairness that takes account of
     flow duration? Large number of flows over separate paths (e.g. via
     an overlay)?

   If we assume cost fairness as a goal with congestion volume as the
   metric, open issues would be:

   - Can one application's sensitivity to instantaneous congestion
     really be protected by longer-term accountability of competing
   - Which protocol mechanism(s) to give accountability for causing

   - How to design one or two generic transport protocols (such as to
     TCP, UDP, etc.) with the addition of application policy control?
   - Which policy enforcement by networks and interactions between
     application policy and network policy enforcement?
   - Competition with flows aiming for rate equality (e.g. TCP);

   The question of how to reason about fairness is a pre-requisite to

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008                [Page 7]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   agreeing the research agenda. However, that question does not require
   more research in itself, it is merely a debate that needs to be
   resolved by studying existing research and by assessing how bad
   fairness problems could become if they are not addressed rigorously.

3. Detailed Challenges

3.1 Challenge 1: Router Support

   Routers can be involved in congestion control in two ways: first,
   they can implicitly optimize their functions, such as queue
   management and scheduling strategies, in order to support the
   operation of an end-to-end congestion control.

   Various approaches have been proposed and also deployed, such as
   different AQM techniques. Even though these implicit techniques are
   known to improve network performance during congestion phases, they
   are still only partly deployed in the Internet. This may be due to
   the fact that finding optimal and robust parameterizations for these
   mechanisms is a non-trivial problem. Indeed, the problem with various
   AQM schemes is the difficulty to identify correct values of the
   parameter set that affects the performance of the queuing scheme (due
   to variation in the number of sources, the capacity and the feedback
   delay) [Fioriu00] [Hollot01] [Zhang03]. Many AQM schemes (RED, REM,
   BLUE, PI-Controller but also Adaptive Virtual Queue (AVQ)) do not
   define a systematic rule for setting their parameters.

   Second, routers can participate in congestion control via explicit
   notification mechanisms. By such feedback from the network,
   connection endpoints can obtain more accurate information about the
   current network characteristics on the path. This allows endpoints to
   make more precise decisions that can better prevent packet loss and
   that can also improve fairness among different flows. Examples for
   explicit router feedback include Explicit Congestion Notification
   (ECN) [RFC3168], Quick-Start [RFC4782], and eXplicit Control Protocol
   (XCP) [Katabi02] [Falk07].

   As the per-flow bandwidth-delay product increases, TCP becomes
   inefficient and prone to instability, regardless of the queuing
   scheme. XCP is a well-known scheme that has been developed to address
   these issues with per-packet feedback. By decoupling resource
   utilization/congestion control from fairness control, XCP outperforms
   TCP in conventional and high bandwidth-delay environments, and
   remains efficient, fair, scalable, and stable regardless of the link
   capacity, the round trip time (RTT), and the number of sources. XCP
   aims at achieving fair bandwidth allocation, high utilization, a
   small standing queue size, and near-zero packet drops, with both
   steady and highly varying traffic. Importantly, XCP does not maintain
   any per-flow state in routers and requires few CPU cycles per packet,

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008                [Page 8]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   hence making it potentially applicable in high-speed routers.
   However, XCP is still subject to research efforts: [Andrew05] has
   recently pointed out cases where XCP is locally stable but globally
   unstable (when the maximum RTT of a flow is much larger than the mean
   RTT). This instability can be removed by setting the estimation
   interval to be the maximum observed RTT rather than the mean RTT.
   Nevertheless, this makes the system vulnerable to erroneous RTT
   advertisements. The authors of [PAP02] have shown that, when flows
   with different RTTs are applied, XCP sometimes discriminates among
   heterogeneous traffic flows, even if XCP is generally fair to
   different flows even if they belong to significantly heterogeneous
   flows. [Low05] provides for a complete characterization of the XCP
   equilibrium properties.

   In general, such router support raises many issues that have not been
   completely solved yet.

3.1.1 Performance and robustness

   Congestion control is subject to some tradeoffs: on one hand, it must
   allow high link utilizations and fair resource sharing but on the
   other hand, the algorithms must also be robust and conservative in
   particular during congestion phases.

   Router support can help to improve performance and fairness, but it
   can also result in additional complexity and more control loops. This
   requires a careful design of the algorithms in order to ensure
   stability and avoid e.g. oscillations. A further challenge is the
   fact that information may be imprecise. For instance, severe
   congestion can delay feedback signals. Also, the measurement of
   parameters such as RTTs or data rates may contain estimation errors.
   Even though there has been significant progress in providing
   fundamental theoretical models for such effects, research has not
   completely explored the whole problem space yet.

   Open questions are:

   - How much can routers theoretically improve performance in the
     complete range of communication scenarios that exists in the

   - Is it possible to design robust mechanisms that offer significant
     benefits without additional risks?

   - What is the minimum support that is needed from routers in order
     to achieve significantly better performance than with end-to-end

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008                [Page 9]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

3.1.2 Granularity of router functions

   There are several degrees of freedom concerning router involvement,
   ranging from some few additional functions in network management
   procedures one the one end, and additional per packet processing on
   the other end of the solution space. Furthermore, different amounts
   of state can be kept in routers (no per-flow state, partial per-flow
   state, soft state, hard state). The additional router processing is a
   challenge for Internet scalability and could also increase end-to-end

   There are many solutions that do not require per-flow state and thus
   do not cause a large processing overhead. However, scalability issues
   could also be caused, for instance, by synchronization mechanisms for
   state information among parallel processing entities, which are e. g.
   used in high-speed router hardware designs.

   Open questions are:

   - What granularity of router processing can be realized without
     affecting Internet scalability?

   - How can additional processing efforts be kept at a minimum?

3.1.3 Information acquisition

   In order to support congestion control, routers have to obtain at
   least a subset of the following information. Obtaining that
   information may result in complex tasks.

   1. Capacity of (outgoing) links

   Link characteristics depend on the realization of lower protocol
   layers. Routers do not necessarily know the link layer network
   topology and link capacities, and these are not always constant (e.
   g., on shared wireless links). Difficulties also arise when using IP-
   in-IP tunnels [RFC 2003] or MPLS [RFC3031] [RFC3032]. In these cases,
   link information could be determined by cross-layer information
   exchange, but this requires link layer technology specific
   interfaces. An alternative could be online measurements, but this can
   cause significant additional network overhead.

   2. Traffic carried over (outgoing) links

   Accurate online measurement of data rates is challenging when traffic
   is bursty. For instance, measuring a "current link load" requires
   defining the right measurement interval/ sampling interval. This is a
   challenge for proposals that require knowledge e.g. about the current
   link utilization.

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 10]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   3. Internal buffer statistics

   Some proposals use buffer statistics such as a virtual queue length
   to trigger feedback.  However, routers can include multiple
   distributed buffer stages that make it difficult to obtain such

   Open questions are: Can and should this information be made
   available, e.g., by additional interfaces or protocols?

3.1.4 Feedback signaling

   Explicit notification mechanisms can be realized either by in-band
   signaling (notifications piggybacked along with the data traffic) or
   by out-of-band signaling. The latter case requires additional
   protocols and can be further subdivided into path-coupled and path-
   decoupled approaches.

   Open questions concerning feedback signaling include:

   - At which protocol layer should the feedback signaling occur
     (IP/network layer assisted, transport layer assisted, hybrid
     solutions, shim layer, intermediate sub-layer, etc.) ?

   - What is the optimal frequency of feedback (only in case of
     congestion events, per RTT, per packet, etc.)?

3.2 Challenge 2: Corruption Loss

   It is common for congestion control mechanisms to interpret packet
   loss as a sign of congestion. This is appropriate when packets are
   dropped in routers because of a queue that overflows, but there are
   other possible reasons for packet drops. In particular, in wireless
   networks, packets can be dropped because of corruption, rendering the
   typical reaction of a congestion control mechanism inappropriate.

   TCP over wireless and satellite is a topic that has been investigated
   for a long time [Krishnan04]. There are some proposals where the
   congestion control mechanism would react as if a packet had not been
   dropped in the presence of corruption (cf. TCP HACK [BALAN01]), but
   discussions in the IETF have shown that there is no agreement that
   this type of reaction is appropriate. For instance, it has been said
   that congestion can manifest itself as corruption on shared wireless
   links, and in any case it is questionable whether a source that sends
   packets that are continuously impaired by link noise should keep
   sending at a high rate.

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 11]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   Generally, two questions must be addressed when designing congestion
   control mechanism that takes corruption into account:

   1. How is corruption detected?

   2. What should be the reaction?

   In addition to question 1 above, it may be useful to consider
   detecting the reason for corruption, but this has not yet been done
   to the best of our knowledge.

   Corruption detection can be done using an in-band or out-of-band
   signaling mechanism, much in the same way as described for
   Challenge 1. Additionally, implicit detection can be considered: link
   layers sometimes retransmit erroneous frames, which can cause the
   end-to-end delay to increase - but, from the perspective of a sender
   at the transport layer, there are many other possible reasons for
   such an effect.

   Header checksums provide another implicit detection possibility: if a
   checksum only covers all the necessary header fields and this
   checksum does not show an error, it is possible for errors to be
   found in the payload using a second checksum. Such error detection is
   possible with UDP-Lite and DCCP; it was found to work well over a
   GPRS network in a study [Chester04] and poorly over a WiFi network in
   another study [Rossi06] [Welzl08]. Note that, while UDP-Lite and DCCP
   enable the detection of corruption, the specifications of these
   protocols do not foresee any specific reaction to it for the time

   The idea of having a transport endpoint detect and accordingly react
   to corruption poses a number of interesting questions regarding
   cross-layer interactions. As IP is designed to operate over arbitrary
   link layers, it is therefore difficult to design a congestion control
   mechanism on top of it, which appropriately reacts to corruption -
   especially as the specific data link layers that are in use along an
   end-to-end path are typically unknown to entities at the transport

   The IETF has not yet specified how a congestion control mechanism
   should react to corruption.

   Open questions concerning corruption loss include:

   - How should corruption loss be detected?

   - How should a source react when it is known that corruption has

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 12]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

3.3 Challenge 3: Small Packets

   Over past years, the performance of TCP congestion avoidance
   algorithms has been extensively studied. The square root formula of
   [Padye98] provides the performance of the TCP congestion avoidance
   algorithm for TCP Reno [RFC2581]. The PKFT model enhances the square
   root formula to account for timeouts, receiver window, and delayed
   ACKs. This formula validated by many experiments is insensitive to
   the TCP flavor. However, large portion of TCP flows are short-lived
   short-transfers, for which delay is dominated by slow-start.

   For the sake of the present discussion, we will assume that the TCP
   throughput is expressed using the simplified SQRT formula. Using this
   formula, the TCP throughput is inversely proportional to the RTT and
   the square root of the drop probability:

                      MSS   1
                B ~ C --- -------
                      RTT sqrt(p)


         MSS is the TCP segment size (in bytes)
         RTT is the end-to-end round trip time of the TCP connection (in
         p is the packet drop probability

   Observing that TCP is not suited for applications such as streaming
   media (since reliable in-order delivery and congestion control can
   cause arbitrarily long delays), the Datagram Congestion Control
   Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340] has been designed. DCCP enables unreliable
   but congestion-controlled datagram flow transmission avoiding the
   arbitrary delays associated with TCP. DCCP is intended for
   applications such as streaming media that can benefit from control
   over the tradeoffs between delay and reliable in-order delivery.

   DCCP provides for a choice of modular congestion control mechanisms.
   DCCP uses Congestion Control Identifiers (CCIDs) to specify the
   congestion control mechanism. Three profiles are currently specified:
   - DCCP Congestion Control ID 2 (CCID 2) [RFC4341]:
     TCP-like Congestion Control. CCID 2 sends data using a close
     variant of TCP's congestion control mechanisms, incorporating a
     variant of SACK [RFC2018, RFC3517]. CCID 2 is suitable for senders
     who can adapt to the abrupt changes in congestion window typical of
     TCP's AIMD congestion control, and particularly useful for senders
     who would like to take advantage of the available bandwidth in an
     environment with rapidly changing conditions.
   - DCCP Congestion Control ID 3 (CCID 3) [RFC4342]:

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 13]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

     TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) [RFC3448bis] is a congestion
     control mechanism designed for unicast flows operating in a best-
     effort Internet environment. It is reasonably fair when competing
     for bandwidth with TCP flows, but has a much lower variation of
     throughput over time compared with TCP, making it more suitable for
     applications such as streaming media where a relatively smooth
     sending rate is of importance. CCID 3 is appropriate for flows that
     would prefer to minimize abrupt changes in the sending rate,
     including streaming media applications with small or moderate
     receiver buffering before playback.
   - DCCP Congestion Control ID 4 [draft-ietf-ccid4-02.txt]:
     TFRC Small Packets (TFRC-SP) [RFC4828], a variant of TFRC
     mechanism has been designed for applications that exchange small
     packets. The objective of TFRC-SP is to achieve the same
     bandwidth in bps (bits per second) as a TCP flow using packets of
     up to 1500 bytes.  TFRC-SP enforces a minimum interval of 10 ms
     between data packets to prevent a single flow from sending small
     packets arbitrarily frequently. TFRC is a congestion control
     mechanism for unicast flows operating in a best-effort Internet
     environment, and is designed for DCCP that controls the sending
     rate based on a stochastic Markov model for TCP Reno. CCID 4 has
     been designed to be used either by applications that use a small
     fixed segment size, or by applications that change their sending
     rate by varying the segment size. Because CCID 4 is intended for
     applications that use a fixed small segment size, or that vary
     their segment size in response to congestion, the transmit rate
     derived from the TCP throughput equation is reduced by a factor
     that accounts for packet header size, as specified in [RFC4828].

   The resulting open questions are:
   - Assess and experiment TFRC-SP variant: in some stable and
     unstable conditions, it appears that the congestion control
     mechanisms for small packets must be further enhanced, tightly
     coordinated, and controlled over wide-area networks.
   - How to design congestion control so as to scale with packet
     size (dependency of congestion algorithm on packet size)? Early
     assessment shows that packet size dependency should remain at
     the transport layer.

   Today, many network resources are designed so that packet processing
   cannot be overloaded even for incoming loads at the maximum bit-rate
   of the line. If packet processing can handle sustained load r [packet
   per second] and the minimum packet size is h [bit] (i.e. packet
   headers with no payload), then a line rate of x [bit per second] will
   never be able to overload packet processing as long as x =< r.h.
   However, realistic equipment is often designed to only cope with a
   near-worst-case workload with a few larger packets in the mix, rather
   than the worst-cast of all minimum size packets. In this case, x =
   r.(h + e) for some small value of e.

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 14]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   Therefore, it is likely that most congestion seen on today's Internet
   is due to an excess of bits rather than packets, although packet-
   congestion is not impossible for runs of small packets (e.g. TCP ACKs
   or DoS attacks with small UDP datagrams).

   This observation raises additional open issues:

   o) Will bit congestion remain prevalent?

   Being able to assume that congestion is generally due to excess bits
   not excess packets is a useful simplifying assumption in the design
   of congestion control protocols. Can we rely on this assumption into
   the future?

   Over the last three decades, performance gains have mainly been
   through increased packet rates, not bigger packets. But if bigger
   maximum segment sizes become more prevalent, tiny segments (e.g.
   ACKs) will still continue to be widely used---a widening /range/ of
   packet sizes.

   The open question is thus whether packet processing rates (r) will
   keep up with growth in transmission rates (x). A superficial look at
   Moore's Law type trends would suggest that processing (r) will
   continue to outstrip growth in transmission (x). But predictions
   based on actual knowledge of technology futures would be useful.
   Another open question is whether there are likely to be more small
   packets in the average packet mix. If the answers to either of these
   questions predict that packet congestion could become prevalent,
   congestion control protocols will have to be more complicated.

   o) Confusable Causes of Drop

   There is a considerable body of research on how to distinguish
   whether packet drops are due to transmission corruption or to
   congestion. But the full list of confusable causes of drop is longer
   and includes transmission loss, congestion loss (bit congestion and
   packet congestion), and policing loss

   If congestion is due to excess bits, the bit rate should be reduced.
   If congestion is due to excess packets, the packet rate can be
   reduced without reducing the bit rate---by using larger packets.
   However, if the transport cannot tell which of these causes led to a
   specific drop, its only safe response is to reduce bit rate. This is
   why the Internet would be more complicated if packet-congestion were
   prevalent, as reducing the bit rate also reduces the packet rate
   (except in perverse cases), while reducing the packet rate doesn't
   necessarily reduce the bit rate.

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 15]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   Given distinguishing between transmission loss and congestion is
   already an open issue (Section 3.2), if that problem is ever solved,
   a further open issue would be whether to standardize a solution that
   distinguishes all the above causes of drop, not just two of them.

   Nonetheless, even if we find a way for network equipment to
   explicitly distinguish which sort of drop has occurred, we will never
   be able to assume that such a smart AQM solution is deployed at every
   congestible resource throughout the Internet---at every higher layer
   device like firewalls, proxies, servers and at every lower layer
   device like low-end home hubs, DSLAMs, WLAN cards, cellular base-
   stations and so on. Thus, transport protocols will always have to
   cope with drops due to unguessable causes, so we should always treat
   AQM smarts as an optimization, not a given.

   o) What does a congestion notification on a packet of a certain size

   The open issue here is whether a loss or explicit congestion mark
   should be interpreted as a single congestion event irrespective of
   the size of the packet lost or marked, or whether the strength of the
   congestion notification is weighted by the size of the packet. This
   issue is discussed at length in [Bri08], along with other aspects of
   packet size and congestion control.

   [Bri08] makes the strong recommendation that network equipment should
   drop or mark packets with a probability independent of each specific
   packet's size, while congestion controls should respond to dropped or
   marked packets in proportion to the packet's size. This issue is
   deferred to the Transport Area Working Group.

   o) Packet Size and Congestion Control Protocol Design

   If the above recommendation is correct---that the packet size of a
   congestion notification should be taken into account when the
   transport reads, not when the network writes the notification---it
   opens up a significant program of protocol engineering and re-
   engineering. Indeed, TCP does not take packet size into account when
   responding to losses or ECN. At present this is not a pressing
   problem because use of 1500B data segments is very prevalent for TCP
   and the range of alternative segment sizes is not large. However, we
   should design the Internet's protocols so they will scale with packet
   size, so an open issue is whether we should evolve TCP, or expect new
   protocols to take over.

   As we continue to standardize new congestion control protocols, we
   must then face the issue of how they should take account of packet
   size. If we determine that TCP was incorrect in not taking account of
   packet size, even if we don't change TCP, we should not allow new

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 16]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   protocols to follow TCP's example in this respect. For example, as
   explained here above, the small-packet variant of TCP-friendly rate
   control (TFRC-SP [RFC4828]) is an experimental protocol that aims to
   take account of packet size. Whatever packet size it uses, it ensures
   its rate approximately equals that of a TCP using 1500B segments.
   This raises the further question of whether TCP with 1500B segments
   will be a suitable long-term gold standard, or whether we need a more
   thoroughgoing review of what it means for a congestion control to
   scale with packet size.

3.4 Challenge 4: Pseudo-Wires

   Pseudowires (PW) may carry non-TCP data flows (e.g. TDM traffic).
   Structure Agnostic TDM over Packet (SATOP) [RFC4553], Circuit
   Emulation over Packet Switched Networks (CESoPSN), TDM over IP, are
   not responsive to congestion control in a TCP-friendly manner as
   prescribed by [RFC2914]. Moreover, it is not possible to simply
   reduce the flow rate of a TDM PW when facing packet loss.

   Carrying TDM PW over an IP network poses a real problem. Indeed,
   providers can rate control corresponding incoming traffic but it may
   not be able to detect that a PW carries TDM traffic. This can be
   illustrated with the following example.

              ...........       ............
             .           .     .
      S1 --- E1 ---      .     .
             .     |     .     .
             .      === E5 === E7 ---
             .     |     .     .     |
      S2 --- E2 ---      .     .     |
             .           .     .     |      |
              ...........      .     |      v
                               .      ----- R --->
              ...........      .     |      ^
             .           .     .     |      |
      S3 --- E3 ---      .     .     |
             .     |     .     .     |
             .      === E6 === E8 ---
             .     |     .     .
      S4 --- E4 ---      .     .
             .           .     .
              ...........       ............

             \---- P1 ---/     \---------- P2 -----

   Sources S1, S2, S3 and S4 are originating TDM over IP traffic. P1
   provider edges E1, E2, E3, and E4 are rate limiting such traffic. The

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 17]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   SLA of provider P1 with transit provider P2 is such that the latter
   assumes a BE traffic pattern and that the distribution shows the
   typical properties of common BE traffic (elastic, non-real time, non-

   The problem arises for transit provider P2 that is not able to detect
   that IP packets are carrying constant-bit rate service traffic that
   is by definition unresponsive to any congestion control mechanisms.

   Assuming P1 providers are rate limiting BE traffic, a transit P2
   provider router R may be subject to serious congestion as all TDM PWs
   cross the same router. TCP-friendly traffic would follow TCP's AIMD
   algorithm of reducing the sending rate in half in response to each
   packet drop. Nevertheless, the TDM PWs will take all the available
   capacity, leaving no room for any other type of traffic. Note that
   the situation may simply occur because S4 suddenly turns up a TDM PW.

   As it is not possible to assume that edge routers will soon have the
   ability to detect the type of the carried traffic, it is important
   for transit routers (P2 provider) to be able to apply a fair, robust,
   responsive and efficient congestion control technique in order to
   prevent impacting normally behaving Internet traffic. However, it is
   still an open question how the corresponding mechanisms in the data
   and control planes have to be designed.

3.5 Challenge 5: Multi-domain Congestion Control

   Transport protocols such as TCP operate over the Internet that is
   divided into autonomous systems. These systems are characterized by
   their heterogeneity as IP networks are realized by a multitude of
   technologies. Variety of conditions and their variations leads to
   correlation effects between policers that regulate traffic against
   certain conformance criteria.

   With the advent of techniques allowing for early detection of
   congestion, packet loss is no longer the sole metric of congestion.
   ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) marks packets - set by active
   queue management techniques - to convey congestion information trying
   to prevent packet losses (packet loss and the number of packets
   marked gives an indication of the level of congestion). Using TCP
   ACKs to feed back that information allows the hosts to realign their
   transmission rate and thus encourage them to efficiently use the
   network. In IP, ECN uses the two unused bits of the TOS field
   [RFC2474]. Further, ECN in TCP uses two bits in the TCP header that
   were previously defined as reserved [RFC793].

   ECN [RFC3168] is an example of a congestion feedback mechanism from
   the network toward hosts, while the policer must sit at every
   potential point of congestion. The congestion-based feedback scheme

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 18]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   however has limitations when applied on an inter-domain basis.
   Indeed, the same congestion feedback mechanism is required along the
   entire path for optimal control at end-systems.

   Another solution in a multi-domain environment may be the TCP rate
   controller (TRC), a traffic conditioner which regulates the TCP flow
   at the ingress node in each domain by controlling packet drops and
   RTT of the packets in a flow. The outgoing traffic from a TRC
   controlled domain is shaped in such a way that no packets are dropped
   at the policer. However, the TRC depends on the end-to-end TCP model,
   and thus the diversity of TCP implementations is a general problem.

   Security is another challenge for multi-domain operation. At some
   domain boundaries, an increasing number of application layer gateways
   (e. g., proxies) are deployed, which split up end-to-end connections
   and prevent end-to-end congestion control.

   Furthermore, authentication and authorization issues can arise at
   domain boundaries whenever information is exchanged, and so far the
   Internet does not have a single general security architecture that
   could be used in all cases. Many autonomous systems also only
   exchange some limited amount of information about their internal
   state (topology hiding principle), even though having more precise
   information could be highly beneficial for congestion control. The
   future evolution of the Internet inter-domain operation has to show
   whether more multi-domain information exchange can be realized.

3.6 Challenge 6: Precedence for Elastic Traffic

   Traffic initiated by so-called elastic applications adapt to the
   available bandwidth using feedback about the state of the network.
   There are two types of flows: short-lived flows and flows with an
   expected average throughput. For all those flows the application
   dynamically adjusts the data generation rate. Examples of short-lived
   elastic traffic include HTTP and instant messaging traffic. Examples
   of average throughput requiring elastic traffic are FTP and email. In
   brief, elastic data applications can show extremely different
   requirements and traffic characteristics.

   The idea to distinguish several classes of best-effort traffic types
   is rather old, since it would be beneficial to address the relative
   delay sensitivities of different elastic applications. The notion of
   traffic precedence was already introduced in [RFC791], and it was
   broadly defined as "An independent measure of the importance of this

   For instance, low precedence traffic should experience lower average
   throughput than higher precedence traffic. Several questions arise

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 19]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   here: what is the meaning of "relative"? What is the role of the
   Transport Layer?

   The preferential treatment of higher precedence traffic with
   appropriate congestion control mechanisms is still an open issue that
   may, depending on the proposed solution, impact both the host and the
   network precedence awareness, and thereby congestion control.

   - Discuss existing work on low-priority flows - why isn't this stuff
   used? That's an open issue, interesting things could be done with it!

   - Discuss DiffServ [RFC2474] [RFC2475] related aspects with
   congestion control.

3.7 Challenge 7: Misbehaving Senders and Receivers

   In the current Internet architecture, congestion control depends on
   parties acting against their own interests. It is not in a receiver's
   interest to honestly return feedback about congestion on the path,
   effectively requesting a slower transfer. It is not in the sender's
   interest to reduce its rate in response to congestion if it can rely
   on others to do so. Additionally, networks may have strategic reasons
   to make other networks appear congested.

   Numerous strategies to divert congestion control have already been
   identified. The IETF has particularly focused on misbehaving TCP
   receivers that could confuse a compliant sender into assigning
   excessive network and/or server resources to that receiver (e.g.
   [Sav99], [RFC3540]). But, although such strategies are worryingly
   powerful, they do not yet seem common.

   A growing proportion of Internet traffic comes from applications
   designed not to use congestion control at all, or worse, applications
   that add more forward error correction the more losses they
   experience. Some believe the Internet was designed to allow such
   freedom so it can hardly be called misbehavior. But others consider
   that it is misbehavior to abuse this freedom [RFC3714], given one
   person's freedom can constrain the freedom of others (congestion
   represents this conflict of interests). Indeed, leaving freedom
   unchecked might result in congestion collapse in parts of the
   Internet. Proportionately, large volumes of unresponsive voice
   traffic could represent such a threat, particularly for countries
   with less generous provisioning [RFC3714]. More recently, Internet
   video on demand services are becoming popular that transfer much
   greater data rates without congestion control (e.g. the peer-to-peer
   Joost service currently streams media over UDP at about 700kbps
   downstream and 220kbps upstream).

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 20]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   Note that the problem is not just misbehavior driven by a selfish
   desire for more bandwidth (see Section 4).

   Open research questions resulting from these considerations are:

   - By design, new congestion control protocols need to enable one end
     to check the other for protocol compliance.
   - Provide congestion control primitives that satisfy more demanding
     applications (smoother than TFRC, faster than high speed TCPs), so
     that application developers and users do not turn off congestion
     control to get the rate they expect and need.

   Note also that self-restraint is disappearing from the Internet. So,
   it may no longer be sufficient to rely on developers/users
   voluntarily submitting themselves to congestion control. As main
   consequence, mechanisms to enforce fairness (see Section 2.3) need to
   have more emphasis within the research agenda.

3.8 Other challenges

   This section provides additional challenges and open research issues
   that are not (at this point in time) deemed sufficiently large or of
   different nature compared to the main challenges depicted since so

   Note that this section may be complemented in future release of this
   document by topics discussed during the last ICCRG meeting co-located
   with PFLDNet 2008 International Workshop. Topics of interest include
   but not limited to multipath congestion control and congestion
   control for multimedia codecs that only support certain set of data

3.8.1 RTT estimation

   Several congestion control schemes have to precisely know the round-
   trip time (RTT) of a path. The RTT is a measure of the current delay
   on a network. It is defined as the delay between the sending of a
   packet and the reception of a corresponding response, which is echoed
   back immediately by receiver upon receipt of the packet. This
   corresponds to the sum of the one-way delay of the packet and the
   (potentially different) one-way delay of the response. Furthermore,
   any RTT measurement also includes some additional delay due to the
   packet processing in both end-systems.

   There are various techniques to measure the RTT: Active measurements
   inject special probe packets to the network and then measure the
   response time, using e.g. ICMP. In contrast, passive measurements
   determine the RTT from ongoing communication processes, without
   sending additional packets.

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 21]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   The connection endpoints of reliable transport protocols such as TCP,
   SCTP, and DCCP, as well as several application protocols, keep track
   of the RTT in order to dynamically adjust protocol parameters such as
   the retransmission timeout (RTO). They can implicitly measure the RTT
   on the sender side by observing the time difference between the
   sending of data and the arrival of the corresponding
   acknowledgements. For TCP, this is the default RTT measurement
   procedure, in combination with Karn's algorithm that prohibits RTT
   measurements from retransmitted segments [RFC2988]. Traditionally,
   TCP implementations take one RTT measurement at a time (i. e., about
   once per RTT). As alternative, the TCP timestamp option [RFC1323]
   allows more frequent explicit measurements, since a sender can safely
   obtain an RTT sample from every received acknowledgment. In
   principle, similar measurement mechanisms are used by protocols other
   than TCP.

   Sometimes it would be beneficial to know the RTT not only at the
   sender, but also at the receiver. A passive receiver can deduce some
   information about the RTT by analyzing the sequence numbers of
   received segments. But this method is error-prone and only works if
   the sender permanently sends data. Other network entities on the path
   can apply similar heuristics in order to approximate the RTT of a
   connection, but this mechanism is protocol-specific and requires per-
   connection state. In the current Internet, there is no simple and
   safe solution to determine the RTT of a connection in network
   entities other than the sender.

   As outlined earlier in this document, the round-trip time is
   typically not a constant value. For a given path, there is
   theoretical minimum value, which is given by the minimum
   transmission, processing and propagation delay on that path. However,
   additional variable delays might be caused by congestion, cross-
   traffic, shared mediums access control schemes, recovery procedures,
   or other sub-IP layer mechanisms. Furthermore, a change of the path
   (e. g., route flipping, handover in mobile networks) can result in
   completely different delay characteristics.

   Due to this variability, one single measured RTT value is hardly
   sufficient to characterize a path. This is why many protocols use RTT
   estimators that derive an averaged value and keep track of a certain
   history of previous samples. For instance, TCP endpoints derive a
   smoothed round-trip time (SRTT) from an exponential weighted moving
   average [RFC2988]. Such a low-pass filter ensures that measurement
   noise and single outliers do not significantly affect the estimated
   RTT. Still, a fundamental drawback of low-pass filters is that the
   averaged value reacts slower to sudden changes of the measured RTT.
   There are various solutions to overcome this effect: For instance,
   the standard TCP retransmission timeout calculation considers not

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 22]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   only the SRTT, but also a measure for the variability of the RTT
   measurements [RFC2988]. Since this algorithm is not well-suited for
   frequent RTT measurements with timestamps, certain implementations
   modify the weight factors (e.g., [SK02]). There are also proposals
   for more sophisticated estimators, such as Kalman filters or
   estimators that utilize mainly peak values.

   However, open questions concerning RTT estimation in the Internet

   - Optimal measurement frequency: Currently, there is no common
   understanding of the right time scale of RTT measurement. In
   particular, the implications of rather frequent measurements (e. g.,
   per packet) are not well understood. There is some empirical evidence
   that frequent sampling may not have a significant benefit [Allman99].

   - Filter design: A closely related question is how to design good
     filters for the measured samples. The existing algorithms are known
     to be robust, but they are far from being perfect. The fundamental
     problem is that there is no single set of RTT values that could
     characterize the Internet as a whole, i.e., it is hard to define a
     design target.

   - Default values: RTT estimators can fail in certain scenarios, e.
     g., when any feedback is missing. In this case, default values have
     to be used. Today, most default values are set to conservative
     values that may not be optimal for most Internet communication.
     Still, the impact of more aggressive settings is not well

   - Clock granularities: RTT estimation depends on the clock
     granularities of the protocol stacks. Even though there is a trend
     towards higher precision timers, the limited granularity may still
     prevent highly accurate RTT estimations.

3.8.2 Malfunctioning devices

   There is a long history of malfunctioning devices harming the
   deployment of new and potentially beneficial functionality in the
   Internet. Sometimes, such devices drop packets when a certain
   mechanism is used, causing users to opt for reliability instead of
   performance and disable the mechanism, or operating system vendors to
   disable it by default. One well-known example is ECN, whose
   deployment was long hindered by malfunctioning firewalls, but there
   are many other examples (e.g. the Window Scaling option of TCP).

   As new congestion control mechanisms are developed with the intention
   of eventually seeing them deployed in the Internet, it would be
   useful to collect information about failures caused by devices of

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 23]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   this sort, analyze the reasons for these failures, and determine
   whether there are ways for such devices to do what they intend to do
   without causing unintended failures. Recommendation for vendors of
   these devices could be derived from such an analysis. It would also
   be useful to see whether there are ways for failures caused by such
   devices to become more visible to endpoints, or for those failures to
   become more visible to the maintainers of such devices.

4. Security Considerations

   Misbehavior may be driven by pure malice, or malice may in turn be
   driven by wider selfish interests, e.g. using distributed denial of
   service (DDoS) attacks to gain rewards by extortion [RFC4948]. DDoS
   attacks are possible both because of vulnerabilities in operating
   systems and because the Internet delivers packets without requiring
   congestion control.

   Currently the focus of the research agenda against denial of service
   is about identifying attack packets, attacking machines and networks
   hosting them, with a particular focus on mitigating source address
   spoofing. But if mechanisms to enforce congestion control fairness
   were robust to both selfishness and malice [Bri06] they would also
   naturally mitigate denial of service, which can be considered (from
   the perspective of well-behaving Internet user) as a congestion
   control enforcement problem.

5. Contributors

   This document is the result of a collective effort to which the
   following people have contributed:

   Dimitri Papadimitriou <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be>
   Michael Welzl <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at>
   Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov>
   Bela Berde <bela.berde@gmx.de>
   Paulo Loureiro <loureiro.pjg@gmail.com>
   Chris Christou <christou_chris@bah.com>
   Michael Scharf <michael.scharf@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>

6. References

6.1 Normative References

   [RFC791]   Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC793]   Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC793, September 1981.

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 24]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   [RFC896]   Nagle, J., "Congestion Control in IP/TCP", RFC 896,
              January 1984.

   [RFC1323]  Jacobson, V., Braden, R., Borman, D., "TCP Extensions for
              High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.

   [RFC2309]  Braden, B., et al., "Recommendations on queue management
              and congestion avoidance in the Internet", RFC 2309,
              April 1998.

   [RFC2003]  Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 1633,
              October 1996.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S. Baker, F. and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC2581]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.

   [RFC2914]  Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
              RFC 2914, September 2000.

   [RFC2988]  Paxson, V. and Allman, M., "Computing TCP's
              Retransmission Timer", RFC 2988, Nov. 2000

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

   [RFC3448]  Handley, M., Floyd, S., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
              Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification",
              RFC 3448, January 2003.

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

   [RFC3714]  S. Floyd, Ed., J. Kempf, Ed. "IAB Concerns Regarding
              Congestion Control for Voice Traffic in the Internet",
              RFC 3714, March 2004.

   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 25]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March

   [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.

   [RFC4342]  Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for
              Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion
              Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC
              4342, March 2006.

   [RFC4553]  Vainshtein, A. and Y. Stein, "Structure-Agnostic Time
              Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP)",
              RFC 4553, June 2006.

   [RFC4614]  Duke, M., R. Braden, R., Eddy, W., and Blanton, E., "A
              Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
              Specification Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006.

   [RFC4782]  Floyd, S., Allman, M., Jain, A., and P. Sarolahti,
              "Quick-Start for TCP and IP", RFC 4782, Jan. 2007.

   [RFC4948]  L. Andersson, E. Davies, L. Zhang, "Report from the IAB
              workshop on Unwanted Traffic March 9-10, 2006", RFC 4948,
              August 2007.

6.2 Informative References

   [Allman99] Allman, M. and V. Paxson, "On Estimating End-to-End
              Network Path Properties", Proc. SIGCOMM, Sept. 99.

   [Andrew00] L. Andrew, B. Wydrowski and S. Low, "An Example of
              Instability in XCP", Manuscript available at

   [Ath01]    S. Athuraliya, S. Low, V. Li, and Q. Yin, "REM: Active
              queue management", IEEE Network Magazine, vol.15, no.3,
              pp. 48-53, May 2001.

   [BALAN01]  Balan, R. K., Lee, B.P., Kumar, K.R.R., Jacob, L., Seah,
              W.K.G., Ananda, A.L., "TCP HACK: TCP Header Checksum
              Option to Improve Performance over Lossy Links",
              Proceedings of IEEE Infocom, Anchorage, Alaska, April

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 26]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   [Bonald00] T. Bonald, M. May, and J.-C. Bolot, "Analytic Evaluation
              of RED Performance," In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Tel
              Aviv, Israel, March 2000.

   [Bri07]    Bob Briscoe, "Flow Rate Fairness: Dismantling a Religion"
              ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 37(2) 63--74
              (April 2007).

   [Bri06]    Bob Briscoe, "Using Self-interest to Prevent Malice;
              Fixing the Denial of Service Flaw of the Internet,"
              Workshop on the Economics of Securing the Information
              Infrastructure (Oct 2006)

   [Chester04] Chesterfield, J., Chakravorty, R., Banerjee, S.,
              Rodriguez, P., Pratt, I. and Crowcroft, J., "Transport
              level optimisations for streaming media over wide-area
              wireless networks", WIOPT'04, March 2004.

   [Chiu89]   D. M. Chiu and R. Jain, "Analysis of the increase and
              decrease algorithms for congestion avoidance in computer
              networks", Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 17,
              pp. 1-14, 1989.

   [Clark98]  D. Clark and W. Fang, "Explicit Allocation of Best-Effort
              Packet Delivery Service," IEEE/ACM Transactions on
              Networking, vol.6, no.4, pp.362-373, August 1998

   [Floyd93]  S. Floyd and V. Jacobson, "Random early detection
              gateways for congestion avoidance," IEEE/ACM Trans. on
              Networking, vol.1, no.4, pp.397-413, Aug. 1993.

   [Falk07]   A. Falk et al "Specification for the Explicit Control
              Protocol (XCP)", Work in Progress, draft-falk-xcp-spec-
              03.txt, July 2007.

   [Firoiu00] V. Firoiu and M. Borden, "A Study of Active Queue
              Management for Congestion Control," In Proceedings of
              IEEE INFOCOM, Tel Aviv, Israel, March 2000.

   [Floyd94]  S. Floyd, "TCP and Explicit Congestion Notification",
              ACM Computer Communication Review, vol.24, no.5, October
              1994, pp. 10-23.

   [Hollot01] C. Hollot, V. Misra, D. Towsley, and W.-B. Gong, "A
              Control Theoretic Analysis of RED," In Proceedings of
              IEEE INFOCOM, Anchorage, Alaska, April 2001.

   [Jacobson88] V. Jacobson, "Congestion Avoidance and Control", Proc.

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 27]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

              of the ACM SIGCOMM '88 Symposium, pp. 314-329, August

   [Jain88]   R. Jain and K. Ramakrishnan, "Congestion Avoidance in
              Computer Networks with a Connectionless Network Layer:
              Concepts, Goals, and Methodology", In Proceedings of IEEE
              Computer Networking Symposium: proceedings, Sheraton
              National Hotel, Washington, DC area, April 11-13, 1988.

   [Jain90]   R. Jain, "Congestion Control in Computer Networks: Trends
              and Issues", IEEE Network, May 1990, pp. 24-30, ISSN

   [Jin04]    Chen Jin, David X. Wei and Steven Low "FAST TCP:
              Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance," In
              Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications
              Infocomm'04) (March 2004)

   [Katabi02] D. Katabi, M. Handley, and C. Rohr, "Internet Congestion
              Control for Future High Bandwidth-Delay Product
              Environments", Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM '02
              Symposium, pp. 89-102, August 2002.

   [Kelly98]  F. Kelly, A. Maulloo, and D. Tan, "Rate control in
              communication networks: shadow prices, proportional
              fairness, and stability," Journal of the Operational
              Research Society, vol.49, pp.237-252, 1998.

   [Keshav]   S. Keshav, "What is congestion and what is congestion
              control", Presentation at IRTF ICCRG Workshop, Pfldnet
              2007, (Los Angeles), California, February 2007.

   [Krishnan04] R. Krishnan, J. Sterbenz, W. Eddy, C. Partridge, and M.
              Allman, "Explicit Transport Error Notification (ETEN) for
              Error-Prone Wireless and Satellite Networks", Computer
              Networks, vol.46, no.3, October 2004.

   [Low05]    S. Low, L. Andrew and B. Wydrowski. "Understanding XCP:
              equilibrium and fairness", Proceedings of IEEE Infocom,
              Miami, USA, March 2005.

   [Low03.2]  S. Low, F. Paganini, J. Wang, and J. Doyle, "Linear
              stability of TCP/RED and a scalable control", Computer
              Networks Journal, vol.43, no.5, pp.633-647, December

   [Low03.1]  S. Low, "A duality model of TCP and queue management
              algorithms", IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, vol.11, no.4,
              pp.525-536, August 2003.

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 28]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

   [Low02]    S. Low, F. Paganini, J. Wang, S. Adlakha, and J. C.
              Doyle, "Dynamics of TCP/RED and a Scalable Control",
              Proceedings of IEEE Infocom, New York, USA, June 2002.

   [MKMV95]   MacKie-Mason, J. and H. Varian, "Pricing Congestible
              Network Resources", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
              Communications, `Advances in the Fundamentals of
              Networking' 13(7)1141--1149, 1995, <http://

   [Padye98]  Padhye, J., Firoiu, V., Towsley, D., Kurose, J., "Modeling
              TCP Throughput: A Simple Model and Its Empirical
              Validation," UMASS CMPSCI Tech Report TR98-008, Feb. 1998.

   [Pan00]    R. Pan, B. Prabhakar, and K. Psounis, "CHOKe: a stateless
              AQM scheme for approximating fair bandwidth allocation",
              In Proceedings of IEEE Infocom, Tel Aviv, Israel, March

   [Rossi06]  Rossi, M., "Evaluating TCP with Corruption Notification
              in an IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN", master thesis,
              University of Innsbruck, November 2006. Available from

   [Sarola02] Sarolahti, P. and Kuznetsov, A., "Congestion Control in
              Linux TCP", "Proc. USENIX Annual Technical Conference",
              June 2002

   [Savage99] Savage, S., Wetherall, D., and T. Anderson, "TCP
              Congestion Control with a Misbehaving Receiver," in ACM
              SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review (1999).

   [TRILOGY]  "Trilogy Project", European Commission Seventh Framework
              Program Contract Number: INFSO-ICT-216372

   [Welzl08]  M. Welzl, M. Rossi, A. Fumagalli, and M. Tacca, " TCP/IP
              over IEEE 802.11b WLAN: the Challenge of Harnessing
              Known-Corrupt Data", In Proceedings of IEEE ICC 2008, 19-
              23 May 2008, Beijing, China.

   [Zhang03]  H. Zhang, C. Hollot, D. Towsley, and V. Misra. "A Self-
              Tuning Structure for Adaptation in TCP/AQM Networks",
              SIGMETRICS'03, June 10-14, 2003, San Diego, California,

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 29]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008


   The authors would like to thank the following people whose feedback
   and comments contributed to this document: Keith Moore, Jan

   Larry Dunn (his comments at the Manchester ICCRG and discussions with
   him helped with the section on packet-congestibility). Bob Briscoe's
   contribution was partly funded by [TRILOGY], a research project
   supported by the European Commission.

Author's Addresses

   Michael Welzl
   University of Innsbruck
   Technikerstr 21a
   A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
   Phone: +43 (512) 507-6110
   Email: michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at

   Dimitri Papadimitriou
   Copernicuslaan, 50
   B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
   Phone : +32 3 240 8491
   Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be

   Michael Scharf
   University of Stuttgart
   Pfaffenwaldring 47
   D-70569 Stuttgart
   Phone: +49 711 685 69006
   Email: michael.scharf@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de

   Bob Briscoe
   BT & UCL
   B54/77, Adastral Park
   Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich  IP5 3RE
   Email: bob.briscoe@bt.com

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 30]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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

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

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 31]

Open Research Issues in Internet Congestion Control         April 2008

Welzl & Papadimitriou   Expires - October 2008               [Page 32]

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